Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars Do Heal


 * 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Scars Do Heal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book published by a vanity press. One review, could not find others. See this page for a publisher's description of the book, then click on "packages" to see how much it costs to get your own book published there. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

*Abstain. I abstain. Pikachu is my homeboy (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Sockpuppet of. GABHello! 14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an article about a non-notable, self-published vanity press novel, with just a single brief published review in a possibly reliable source. In rare cases, such a book gains notability, through extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * AM, the links you gave show that you still do not understand WP:RS. They are all bad sources: they are not reliable. This is because those sites allow anyone to review a book.If you have an Amazon account you can review the book. This is all covered in WP:RS. Please read it. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about WP:RS. Point taken regarding Goodreads. However, my point of view is that most of the reviews on Amazon for this article contains a legend Verfied Purchase and on that premise, it is my opinion that the reviews on Amazon that carry a legend Verified Purchase shouldn't be classified as bad sources.AM (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, reviews on Amazon are SPS and not reliable here in WP. I will talk you through all this.  Wikipedia has been around 15 years and there are clear policies and guidelines and norms/traditions - it is community consensus that things like Amazon reviews are not RS.  There is very little new under the sun here, as you will learn.  I will show you how to figure that stuff out and where to check, back at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The relevant notability guidelines are at WP:BKCRIT. From what I see in the article, the book appears to have been the subject of one independent and reliable newspaper article (reviews at amazon and the like don't count I'm afraid), so it doesn't seem to meet them at present. I haven't had the time to look for more sources. Uanfala (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of View Would these be considered as a reliable news sources ? One news source reference (that got lost during other user edit) was from a newspaper called Dina Thanthi also featured on Wikipedia as a newspaper - This article is from [DT next] and DTNext is the English edition of this newspaper.. Another few news source in support of WP:BKCRIT The NewIndian Express and The BetterIndian AM (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The BetterIndian article was written in the first person by the author of the book, and is therefore utterly worthless for establishing notability for a Wikipedia article. It is not independent, and independent sources are required. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Dina Thanthi source is an interview with the author and therefore not an independent source which does not establish notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's not enough coverage to suggest a solid independent article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are presently not found that would suggest the work meets any criteria in WP:NBOOK. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:BOOK; should have gone through AfC; would not have passed. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: publisher is Notion Press, a self-publishing company. Enough said. No evidence of any notability. Pam  D  13:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, no reliable reviews found. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (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.