Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balada a symphony of eternity


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Balada a symphony of eternity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy delete declined (should have just done it myself) as for some reason we don't have a criteria for non-notable books. Which this is. Self-published through Amazon, no references, nothing whatsoever to indicate it's got any notability whatsoever. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Incubate, as it may have sources eventually, so it should be kept as a draft. PikachuRP25 17:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventually, in this case, would be somewhere around the heat death of the universe, I'd suggest. This series of books appears to be nothing more than the tens of thousands of other self-published pieces shoved up onto Amazon - the author has zero coverage, the books have zero coverage, they appear to have pretty much zero sales. I know we've got lots of storage space, but I'm sure there's better things to use it on than this. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. FWIW, I did try making a speedy deletion criteria since there's been a definite uptick in the amount of nn self-published books getting added to Wikipedia, but there was no consensus for it. Hopefully we'll see it at some point at the future, since it seems like this number is only increasing. In any case, I can't find anything to suggest that this book series is ultimately noteworthy enough for an article. There's no coverage out there in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable and would help the work pass NBOOK. While we can't use WP:SPS like blogs, I have to mention that I'm not even seeing any blog coverage to show that there's a big fan following for this author. Why I'm mentioning this is because if a book series has zero coverage in RS or in the book blogs, that usually indicates that it's very unlikely that it will pass notability guidelines any time soon, if ever. It could happen, but it's so rare that it means that the article isn't really worth incubating at this point in time. I suppose someone could, but it'd be better to just wait and create an article if/when the books gain notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This one is pretty obvious. We keep drafts when there is a reasonable chance of showing notability within 6 months, but that's very unlikely here. We don't have a speedy for books, because there have been too many cases of very notable books, especially children's books,  getting deleted because nobody recognized the title, but maybe the time has come for a change for, say, self published books with no published reviews.  DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.