Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Angel Hypothesis


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My Angel Hypothesis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable book published through a vanity publisher. I can find no significant independent coverage of this work at all. Also nominating the new article on the book's protagonist.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources writing about this book. The sources in the article aren't what I would deem reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Contest Deletion-There are reliable sources noted. The publisher, Xlibris, has a Wikipedia page.  Can't independently written novels that have received national reviews have a Wikipedia page?  How were the sources deemed unreliable?  How did you come to that conclusion?  Did you research them?  The book has been reviewed nationally, and are considered very reliable and respected LGBT sources.  Are they unreliable because they are LGBT sources?  If so, that's a problem.  If this is not the case, please explain how you deemed them unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.58.20 (talk)
 * Comment' - Xlibris is a self-publisher. That means that anybody who pays money to them will get their book published.  As such, being published by Xlibris does not establish notability.  Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact checking an editorial oversight.  I don't see any of teh references provided meeting this. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Contest Deletion - Yes, Xlibris is a self-publisher. The problem is: "The sources in the article aren't what I would deem reliable."  The Gay Independent Writer is not a reliable national source?  Patricia Nell Warren wrote in the issue this book was reviewed in.  This is not a reliable source and not significant coverage?  Can you tell me why?  Why do some articles have much less or no "reliable" sources than this one, but they're not nominated for deletion.  I just find your arguments interesting for a book that's been used in LGBT courses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.58.20 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Contest Deletion - It's interesting the way this article has been targeted by Wikipedia "workers", including Moonriddengirl replacing a positive review with a negative one. Why is this article being targeted like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.58.20 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Moonriddengirl (who seems to have been concerned by the overly long quotation), but for my part I "targeted" these articles only because the subjects are just not notable. I mean, there's absolutely no need for a separate article on Tysin Nagel (check the Google hits on him, for instance), and after my PROD there was removed I considered whether to suggest merging him into the book's article, but ended up concluding that it did not meet WP:NBOOK in any way.  If you're worried about anti-gay bias here, check today's Articles for Deletion log, I assure you people suggest the deletion of everything under the sun.  I hope this helps explain my thinking--   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: You asked "Why do some articles have much less or no 'reliable' sources than this one, but they're not nominated for deletion[?]"  I hear you, but check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Falls short of WP:NB lacking reliable sources.  No - Independent Gay Writer is not a reliable source (The Gay Independent Writer even less so) Lame Name (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (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.