Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Days-Angel of Light


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Demon Days (novel) and Demon Days-Angel of Light

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested Prods. Created by paid group account Expewikiwriter, and pretty obviously non-notable. For example, the second book's publisher's webpage? Hosted on blogspot. (As for the first book, here's the pblisher's website. Try to find the book without leaving the site and googling it.) Google news finds one result for the query "Demon Days" Finney, and since both novels have the phrase Demon Days in their title, that should show up all reviews (and, just to make it worse: That one result? From a press release aggregator). Scholar finds a big fat zero (once disambiguated by adding Finney). I really don't think this is at all ambiguous; it's a clear delete for lack of notability. 86.** IP (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was looking at the review from HorrorNews.net and I can't tell if that's a guest reviewer or a regular one, as I know there's a big difference there and people can submit their own reviews.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible merge and redirect to author's page or delete. There's not enough reliable sources out there to show that the books merit their own articles, but might be worth a mention on the author's page. (Although the notability of the author himself is somewhat dubious, but then his article isn't the one up for deletion.) The sources that were previously on these articles included non-notable blog reviews and links to amazon pages. Generally speaking, if you have to link to Amazon to provide a source then that's a sign of non-notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged all pertinent data, which wasn't really all that much. The only thing worth adding was the mention of it formerly being a screenplay and the HorrorNews.net article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. The author doesn't seem to have much or any notability, at least not enough to merit an article himself, so I just think these should be deleted. Any pertinent data has been merged and I'll see if I can find anything to show that Finney has notability, but it's not looking all that good.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually started looking into Finney, after your first comment. Such ridiculously inflated claims! See WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Finney. 86.** IP (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Both fail WP:NBOOK. SmartSE (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Can't find multiple, substantive, independent, reliable sources via Google/News/Books. Thus both fail WP:NBOOK. Valfontis (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2012 (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.