Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Begins at 40 (Novel)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Life Begins at 40 (Novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable book, published by self-publishing firm Hirst Books. Corvus cornix talk  22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hirst Books are not a self-publishing firm Traken (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This says they are.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That site is no longer used. The "self publihing" imprint is now ::100 PublishingTraken (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BK. Hirst may or may not be a self-publishing firm, but their site makes it pretty clear they aren't exactly picky: "whatever your book, we would like to publish it". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - reagardless of whether it is self-published, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable book. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs better source material, and is non-notable. Perhaps over time if this novel gains significance (*cough*) it can be revisited... Cactusjump (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible DELETE. Really awful case of WP:WG, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPS, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA.  What you've got here is a guy who pays vanity presses to print his work, then goes around the Internet, including Wikipedia, trying to masquerade as a legitimately published author, in order to try to get attention for himself and his conventionally unpublishable work.  There is a related AfD about the same guy  going on right now--editors having to use their valuable time to try to get this guy's self-promotional projects scrubbed off our encyclopedia.  Delete and salt, please. Qworty (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This page has just been brought to my attention. I wrote this book, but I did not write this article or the other that is under discussion. I am, however, very flattered that someone did. That said, you're probably right. Since the general opinion seems to be that the book is not yet notable enough to have an entry, then perhaps it should be deleted. I would, however, just like to set a few facts straight, since some comments here are stating opinions as fact based largely on assumption. Hirst Books is not a vanity printer. Despite the fact that they used to have an open submission policy in their first year of running, no author was required to put cash up front (as is the case with all vanity/self-publishing firms) and not every submitted work was accepted. I can back this up by the honest admission that I self-published my first two books, partly to try and get some work out there and partly because the second was a charity project, through what might be called a 'vanity press' and the system is totally different. Hirst Publishing is, admittedly, a new firm, and has undergone some radical changes over the past few years which might have led to some confusion to their status as a publisher. What probably marks them out so significantly from vanity publishers is that, for the foreseeable future, they are planning to take on no new authors aside from those with whom deals have already been made, most of whom are relatively well-known TV stars, whose agents, let us not forget, will know better than to print their work with a disreputable press. The self-publishing imprint, 100 Books, operates as a TOTALLY separate company. But if people do wish to pay to have their work printed with them, there shouldn't be any shame in that - they offer a good service. And, although I wouldn't dare put myself in the same league, it might be worth mentioning that William Wordsworth and William Blake were both self-published. If this article needs to be deleted, please delete it. You have no complaint from me. But please let's not get drawn into sniping based so largely on conjecture.Folkbeard (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2011 (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.