Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBI Ghosts


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

FBI Ghosts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this for deletion due to it not passing WP:NBOOK. This is a self-published series and while that doesn't mean that self-published books can't become notable, this series isn't one of those exceptions. There's no coverage to show that this has received notice by any reliable sources. I'm also nominating this along with FBI Ghosts Church of the Fallen, the first book in the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:

I feel that this page does not need to be deleted. It is a relevant publication with plans for a multi book series. This title is available for purchase on major online stores including Amazon and Lulu. How else would a self start get notoriety if he cannot make his series information available to the public. If http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Stars gets a page why not FBI Ghosts: Church of the Fallen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photogeniks (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable self-published books. Hairhorn (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a self published work but I do not think it should be deleted. The page is not promotional, it is straight forward and just good info. It is also relevant as there isn't any wiki info on either topics even outside the book. I think the two pages should be merged together. Hellsbane (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It being promotional or not promotional isn't really the actual issue here. What the issue we have here is that the book has not received any actual coverage in reliable sources. Listings in merchant sites, publishers, blogs, or anything that comes from the author will not show notability for the books or the series. The existence of other pages (such as Chinese Stars) doesn't mean that this page merits an entry. All that the existence of another page means is that the band's article hasn't been noticed yet and either improved or deleted. It could also be that the page has something on it that would establish notability. If anything, pointing out other pages with no established notability actually increases the other page's chance of getting deleted. In any case, it won't save any other articles by existing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, the Chinese Stars has *just* enough notability to where they'd merit an article, but just very barely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of any coverage anywhere upon which to build a verifiable article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The author can publicise his book the way others do: best of all, get with a real publisher and let them do the work (lower percentage of take in royalties, but way bigger sales more than compensates for that...), or failing that, plug it wherever they allow plugging. We don't. We record the arrived, not the up and coming or the struggling. Virtually anything can be listed at Amazon - I've even seen someone asking $98 for a 14 page booklet (wonder how many he sold...). I will say that unlike some self-publishing outfits, lulu do give reasonable space for a webpage. All well and good if anyone knows it's there. Basically, if you're a new author with a regular publisher, you stand a chance of reliable independent reviews. Not all get them. Self-publishers practically never get them. Or the sales. Good luck, anyway. Keep trying the regular publishers - look for a back door... Peridon (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The books are, as has been previously stated, non notable. I have no problem with self published books if they're notable, however these are clearly not. A quick internet search has revealed no mention of them save what the author has already written or listed. --RPhilbrook (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2013 (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.