Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Snow (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.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Snow (Novel)

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

Article is about an apparently non-notable, self-published book. Google returns very few hits and the ones it does return to seem to be ads for the book. Rnb (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Came across page when patrolling. Author is obviously the author of the book as well, so WP:COI but fails notability and no tertiary sources anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable source coverage, fails the general notability guideline.  Book is not listed at the Library of Congress and is published by createspace, a borderline vanity press; it therefore fails the threshold standards of WP:Notability_(books).  Baileypalblue (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above plus it is evident that the links that exist for the article as well as much of the article itself are an attempt to sell the book. Valley2 city ‽ 07:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the obviously spammy order links. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-publishing note: (Createspace) "What's new about CreateSpace is the free ISBN and direct link to Amazon with no up-front costs." Proofreader77 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yes, self-published and no reviews, etc... But noting (to myself) that "self-published" may apply to many notable books in the future. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other !votes say it - CreateSpace, the publisher, is kinda like Lulu.com. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CreateSpace is nothing like Lulu. They're trying to attract clients by making it harder for other self-publishers to sell with them. They're using their monopoly to put others on the sideline. (Disclosure: I'm a Lulu forum volunteer) - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While a self-published book could in theory be notable, there's no indication that this one is. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki article was not being used for self-promotion to sell copies, but it was a mere start since I plan on publishing a series of books, and sending off my works to actual publishing companies, which would be acceptable by wikipedia.org terms. You can remove the purchase links if you like, but all I am asking for is a page for my novel. Okay, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaymeK1990 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles on Wikipedia need to meet notability requirements; the requirements for books are available at WP:NB. You may also wish to review WP:COI. Rnb (talk) 00:57, 10 February 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.