Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russet Noon


 * 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. SNOW applies here. Tone 13:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Russet Noon

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

I've just declined a speedy spam on this. I concede that it is very close to being spam, but there a link to a criticism.

I'm bringing this to AfD for a community decision on notability. The link provided to buzznet is enough to assert notability I think, but whether there is enough out there for a WP article, especially so far in advance of publication, is a question for a wider audience. -- Ged UK  09:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BOOKS. In any case, if kept the article needs a heavy rewrite and the author (if is actually the same Lady Sybilla as the author) needs to pay attention to WP:COI. Also, the source at buzznet focuses on the copyright issue - and the article should too, rather than reproducing the plot of a book that hasn't been published yet. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. This article serves as only a form of publicity for the author, someone who frankly, was unknown until the whole thing about Russet Noon. I'd wait for the book to be actually published before putting the article back on. 220.255.7.175 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable fanfiction that can never be properly published due to its author's complete and bizarre misunderstandings of intellectual property law. I speedied this yesterday as spam but it was quickly recreated; at least having a full discussion gives us the option of using WP:CSD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm another one of the speediers for this article and her bio article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP. Seems to me to be little more than an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote herself and a non-notable unpublished/unpublishable ripoff of Twilight. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or change heavily. The main author of the article has used different means to promote her book in different areas of the Internet already.  The one good argument for keeping a version of the Russet Noon article is the potential copyright issues it could discuss, however the book itself is not even a book, it's an attempt to sell a piece of fanfiction.  --Frogwidget (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, possible speedy delete per Criteria G11 as blatant advertising.--Jayron32. talk . contribs 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't be speedied now as it's already been declined. -- Ged UK  08:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; it can always be restored if the copyright infringement becomes notable. Laïka  23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A book that hasn't been published—and, given that it's a massive copyright violation, one that can't be published. Its notoriety consists solely of some flamewars with the author on Twilight fansites. A tempest in a teapot. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete while the publisher has issued a press release about the copyright concerns, at best, any publicity may belong somewhere on the Twilight article. It's too early to see if this will even make it to publishing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article about an unpublished work of fanfiction, written by its author, and cited exclusively by unreliable sources?  That doesn't add up to any kind of claim to notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion for an unpublished work does not meet notability standards, and fails several key WP policies as noted above. --Kynn (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above that this may even qualify for speedy delete per Criteria G11 as well as WP:SOAP. Clockster (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Now that I've giggled my way through it, toast that sucker. --Thespian (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this author has accepted deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Time to pack the snowball. Daniel Case (talk) 12:22, 19 April 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.