Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No hope for gomez


 * 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. Consensus is that the sourcing is insufficient.  Sandstein  07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No hope for gomez

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable work of fiction missing references to reliable sources (contested PROD). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Added more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepidecko (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added many references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepidecko (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the "many references" added are reliable sources. This is the first novel by the similarly non-notable Graham Parke. No independent reliable sources provided or found. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  ℳ ono    17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with SummerPhD's assessment of the cited references, and I cannot find any other evidence that this self-published (Outskirts press) first novel is notable. Note that the same contributor concurrently created articles at Wikiquote on this book and author. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't Delete User Dlduncan2 just added more notable sources. Thank you for also noticing the wikiquote article. It contains quotes, so that seemed like a good place for it Lepidecko 16 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.10 (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentFor us to keep the article, we need evidence that it is notable. The best evidence of this is usually substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. We have not been able to find such coverage. If you know of such coverage, please provide it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 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.