Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Improperly restored PROD, but concern still stands. "No asserted nobility, fails WP:NBOOK" Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 14:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Siiggghhh you guys are right. I feel foolish. I really loved her books, which I found randomly, so I decided to make sure her and her books had a page. But didn't realize that her 'Publishing Companies" are variations of self-titled type companies. I shall delete the pages. Goodfellow408 (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing to show that this book (or the series itself) is notable per WP:NBOOK. The only sources that come up are a few non-notable blog reviews as well as many places where the book can be purchased. It's just WP:TOOSOON to add this author or her books. The only source on the article is to Barnes and Nobles, which merely proves that the book exists and existing is not grounds for notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. Goodfellow, never feel foolish about contributing. Just because this didn't pan out didn't mean that you did anything bad. You made an article in good faith and it just didn't get the necessary stuff needed to keep it, but that's nothing you should feel bad about. You learned from it and next time you'll do better. It's how all of us on Wikipedia learn. I can guarantee that just about every one of us has made an article or an edit that didn't pass some Wikipedia guideline or another.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (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.