Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo Destiny Episode I: Worlds Apart


 * 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neo Destiny Episode I: Worlds Apart

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested proposed deletion canididate. The prod template was removed by the page creator, so it is probably worth getting independent eyes running over this. There's nothing turning up in even the fringes of reliable sources, so I think the original prod rationale of there being no evidence of notability stands up. Hiding T 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability, per Notability (books). Self-published and no third party coverage. I42 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete When it's in the book shops, AND selling respectably, try again. Print on Demand is very small market stuff. Friends and family, as the Wikipedia article says. (I hope, by the way, that the version that's available has been proof-read better than the article has...) Peridon (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-published book with no third-party references. Also almost no google hits, so none are likely to exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- No reliable sources to indicate notability and it's likely a conflict of interest as well. Reyk  YO!  22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-published book with no evidence of notability presented. I prodded it earlier today. The prod was contested, but so far no new information has been added. I suspect the author is the person who created the article. He seems to be new to Wikipedia, so he's probably not familiar with the Five Pillars, much less the AfD process. I was going to give him some leeway time to come up with some third party refs. But since it's already at AfD, I have to say that as it stands, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete print-on-demand is the equivalent of vanity publishing or self publishing as far as notability goes. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:33, 21 March 2009 (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.