Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (Young Adult Fiction)


 * 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.  Given the socking involved, I'm not seeing how any additional discussion of the NN book is necessary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Drown (Young Adult Fiction)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable e-book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK.  ttonyb (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Trying to improve the article but not sure how. This is the author's first novel so she is not very well-known; but the book is definately notable and it has already sold many copies. Open to advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC) OH and I tried to include the author's website as a reference; but the system would not let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC) i want to add to the article (character info, author info etc) but i'm not going to bother if it's just going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete seriously, no references or sources i can find besides the amazon kindle title listing itself, which does not establish notability. theres really nothing more to say. good luck to the author of course. There's no content here to userfy, if it ever does become notable. article creator just needs to wait and see if it actually becomes a bona fide bestseller or cult novel, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont Delete the article. I'm still getting used to this whole process and am doing the best I can to improve. This is a great article that gives a lot of information on a book taht people CAN buy and read. I only wrote the article becuase I was being asked about different places one could get information on the book. This article answers all of the questions that people have been asking; and I have already been thanked by several who have viewed it. I am still working to fix it and bring it up to code, I just don't know how. I want to add the author's website as a reference, because it is a good source of info but the program keeps thinking its spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) — Kaylaelyse219 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Hi K219. Sorry about the bad way that you're meeting Wikipedia. There are a pretty strict set of policies about what "can" and "can't" be included on Wikipedia. It's a quality control mechanism. Anyway, for this article to be retained you will have to show how this novel was significant. Did it win a major award? Has it been extensively reviewed in publications like the New York Times Review of Books, etc.? Is the author the subject of independently written news stories? And so on. So start digging for provable awards and such if you can. Unless that can happen, this article, useful and well-written though it may be, seems to be on the wrong side of the train tracks. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OUTCOMES for more information. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep this article, I found it helpful as I was really interested in buying this book prior to reading it. This article gave me just the information I needed to make a decision. I found it very well-written and informative. Definately a good piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaLayne (talk • contribs) 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — JessicaLayne (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock, now blocked. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I've blocked this account for the duration for sockpuppetry, and am striking the next two !votes as sockpuppets. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't Delete I agree with the prior two entries. This article is very well-written and helpful to anyone looking to learn more about the book. The author provides plenty of references and links and the article seems to be free of bias. The only issue would be awards; but from reading the other comments in this section, it seems like the article is about a new author who has written a book that has already been recognized to the point where someone would be asked to write about it. And it is clear from the comment above me that Wiki readers are referring to the article and finding it quite helpful. This article should be given a chance. What's the harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren64 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Daren64 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock, now blocked. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets Got Owned While I disagree with the skitzophernia-ish acts of sock-puppetry, this article seems ok, I mean sure promoting a book through multiple fake personalities is kinda pathetic, but still obviously this person is dedicated. (Probably never gonna stop, I worked with people at this level of immaturity.)  Kijoda (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Kijoda (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.