Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Mint Condition: 2013


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In Mint Condition: 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable yet-to-be-published book with no references. Non-notable (fan fiction?) authors. No indication the publishers exist either. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the authors are anonymous they cannot be assessed for notability; the publisher is seemingly unknown to the Internet.  No reliable sources can possibly be available for an as-yet unpublished book.  Also infringes WP:CRYSTAL, etc.  Ubelowme U  Me  20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - All works in this unpublished anthology will be created by the members of the fansite thedarktower.org which happens to be to only site even mentioning the publisher Ambannon Books. Tl;dr: WP:V, WP:N and WP:TOOSOON. jonkerz ♠talk 20:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is zero coverage of this anywhere but on the DarkTower forums. This is ultimately a non-notable upcoming book that is being published by one of the forum posters. Not notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also of note is that this was added by the publisher. The screen name of the original editor is the same as the email that is posted on the Dark Tower forum. This might be able to be speedied as promotion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COI≠WP:SPAM: clearly there's a conflict of interest, but the article isn't overtly (or even slightly) promotional. We shouldn't assume promotion just because there's a COI; rather, we should judge the article for any WP:NPOV/WP:SPAM issues. matt (talk) 07:07, 5 September 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.