Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons in the sky


 * 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. JForget 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragons in the sky

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim that this is a notable book, doesn't meet notability for books, google doesn't help. Author doesn't seem to meet notability Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This link says it clearly, this is a small, essentially self published, undiscovered book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What makes you say it's "essentially self published"? I looked around the publisher's web page, and can find nothing about their requiring authors to subsidize publications, or about any connections between the author and the publisher&mdash;nor is there anything indicating this on the page you linked to.  Of course, even if it's not self-published, that still by no means means it's necessarily notable enough for a Wikipedia entry; I was just wondering why you said it was "essentially self published"... "Self published" and "published by a small press" are not the same thing.  &mdash;Smeazel (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * you are correct, and i was being sloppy in my comments. it just looked like such a small, marginal publisher. i didnt check thoroughly to see if they charged for publishing. i have no more info than you. My aim was just to try to point out the titles nonnotability, but my choice of words was poor. to my thinking, many (but not all) books at the margins of small press/self published/vanity press start to all look the same (i worked in the book business for years)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet notability guidelines for books. JBsupreme (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Contrary to a statement above, I can find no indication that this book was in any sense self-published. Unfortunately, I can also find no indication of notability.  There are a number of very positive reviews online, so maybe this is a very good book that deserves more notice... but until it's received coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for it to get that notice. &mdash;Smeazel (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the kind words to the author. i like it when authors can hear that we are deleting based on notability not quality.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2009 (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.