Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necromancy Cottage, Or, The Black Art of Gnawing on Bones


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Necromancy Cottage, Or, The Black Art of Gnawing on Bones

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This seems like a very interesting book, but I was unable to locate substantive reviews or other coverage (excluding self-published sources like blogs). I don't think it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, and there is not a good redirect target as the author does not have a Wikipedia article. DanCherek (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I love the title (such 18thC Gothic vibes!) but I can't find any RS coverage either. I checked ProQuest and Newspapers.com which, for such a recent book, would have the reviews if they existed. It appears to be self-published, which doesn't mean non-notable necessarily, but also reduces the likelihood that the requisite reviews foe WP:NBOOK are lurking out there somewhere. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This sounds like an awesome book and the title is pretty darn cool, but I just can't find the coverage. It's really a shame, since I really like how the author set up the cover as well. Hopefully the book will eventually get noticed and get the coverage needed for an article, but for now it's just not there. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence with this article. It features a female author and is related to a significant historical event, but it's also been marked as "censored", and any information I've been able to find on it is tied up privately in government archives from Canada, so it would be of no use here since visitors would find it inaccessible. I've been able to find more information on the author than on the book itself. Apparently Rebecca Maye Holiday is a repeat judge of an international children's short story contest, and studies law and the occult at a university in Eastern Canada. I find that interesting, but is it significant by Wikipedia's standards? Still, I'm a novice here, so I'll stand by and see what more experienced Wikipedians think. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)PetSematary182
 * those details don’t sound “encyclopedia notable” enough to me (many people, eg, study law or the occult) but I am intrigued by your mention of censorship: that kind of thing often does involve coverage/notability. Also, although it is ideal for readers to be able to follow the sources online, it is not required— print and paywalled sources also “count”. I may have access to the Canadian records: can you tell me what you found & where? I think this book is probably hopeless regardless (record-keeping is usually WP:ROUTINE rather than WP:SIGCOV) but I am curious. Since you mentioned you are new, book AfDs can be nicely clear-cut compared to others because WP:NBOOK says a book with two independent book reviews (or other coverage) passes as “notable”. So that’s what we’re looking for. Most books, in my experience, either have bushels of reviews, passing this easily, or they have zero, which seems to be the case here. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (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.