Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy: The darker side of Oz


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dorothy: The darker side of Oz

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Notability (books). The article says it is rumored to be in a movie, but it has no sources to support that claim. The book has been the subject of one review, but under Notability (books) books must have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Battleaxe9872 Talk 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete also appears vanity-published or self-published. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Didn't know making this page would be a violation. I picked up the book from amazon and noticed it didn't have a wiki so thought it noteworthy. As per the movie rumour, that is just something I've heard by word of mouth, but I know the book's had multiple reviews, I think on waterstones, www.sciencefictionandfantasy.co.uk and a couple of other webstores. Thamuzorama Thamuzorama (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as author is not notable, book is even less notable. Thamuzorama, if you created this article in good faith, you have nothing to apologize for. this is not a "violation" if it gets deleted, just an editorial decision. WP:BOLD is policy. Everyone makes errors in judgement here, including myself. thats how we learn to be better editors. The book COULD gain notability in the future, at which time it would likely get picked up by a larger publisher. If its really really good, and you can convince your local bookstore staff to read a copy and promote it, thats how it all begins-word of mouth RULES in the book industry, believe it or not. but so far, its not meeting our standards for an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Outside of a small handful of examples, publishers stay far away from republighing anything from a vanity press. It's unlikely in the extreme that this would ever be ligitimately published.  The publishing industry simply doesn't work that way. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage about this self-published book in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2010 (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.