Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Celestial Hunt


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Celestial Hunt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an ebook that is sourced almost entirely to blogs. About 50 hits on Google, which indicates that it probably isn't notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to stop this page being deleted. Please help us to fix it. Vishal Joshi 05:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unfortunately this book just hasn't received any coverage that we could use as reliable sources (WP:RS) I see where the book has received blog reviews, but none of those count towards notability because they're considered to be an unreliable self-published source. We also cannot use Goodreads as a source because it's also considered to be a self-published source. Other than that, the sources are all primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) or otherwise unusable sources like merchant sites. For what it's worth, the book does look interesting, but we can't keep an article for a book without reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well written article.  If it's published by reliable sources, why not?  RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy This is an author's first book, and it has not won awards or become noted other than the usual sources that list or review thousands of books. I suspect that this article is premature, and that the author may himself become notable in the future. Should that come to pass, then an article on the author, listing all of his books, would be appropriate. Meanwhile, I suggest that this be moved to the user space of User:Vis_says to await further developments of this author. Also, I note that User:Vis_says has created other pages for individual books. Perhaps these also should become author pages? LaMona (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1) All the reviews are genunine review. None of them are promotional or self published reviews. But yes they are not primary sources but can't we consider them as notable resource? 2) User:Vis_says has created other pages for authors not for book. This is my first try for a book. So please look into this and help me out to fix it.Vishal Joshi 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can't use blogs as a reliable source because they are self-published sources and rarely go through an editorial process that we can verify. The reviews on GoodReads fall along the same lines, as it'd also be considered to be a SPS. As far as pages created by other people, the existence of other pages doesn't mean that this page should remain. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2014 (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.