Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running Home (book)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Running Home (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod, so wasting everyone's time doing this the hard way even though nothing has been done to address the issues raised in the proposed deletion. (Nor could it be, since this is a patently non-notable self-published e-book.) The original rationale - "Non-notable e-book, written by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publisher. Only one actual source (the second source doesn't mention this book, and in any case appears to be to a blog), and that "source" is the publisher's website." - has not changed. – iridescent  07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I note that Books of the Dead is a one-man publishing company. I looked for some evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, but I did not find any. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Fearnet review would be considered a reliable source (even though the site is now gone), however we need more than one source to show notability- by today's notability standards on Wikipedia you really need about 2-4 really good, in-depth sources to come close to proving notability for an author. I can't find anything else to really show notability and the closest I could find was this interview on a site that doesn't have any clear editorial guidelines to show that it'd be considered a RS. This is a delete from my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete; I agree with Tokyogirl that the current reference would be valid but clearly not enough. I could not find any aditional reliable sources other than routine listings to buy the book. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2015 (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.