Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Godling Chronicles


 * 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! 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Godling Chronicles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published books with no claim of significance; little secondary coverage. Article is likely written by the author. Blackguard 23:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. You can find a bunch of reviews of these books easily with a Google search. The (auto?)biographical information about the author is suspicious but insufficient to delete the page in light of WP:AGF. On the other hand if you can prove it's him I would say delete it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that you'd have to show that the reviews would be usable as reliable sources to show notability. I haven't searched yet so there may be RS reviews out there, but traditionally self-published books will usually only receive reviews from self-published sources like blogs and via social media review sites like Goodreads or Amazon, none of which can count towards notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Plus even if RS reviews do exist, we need to see them on the article or in the AfD talk to some degree- saying WP:GHITS isn't really a good way to argue for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did search and while I found two local articles about the series, I didn't actually find anything (else) that would really be usable as a reliable source. The closest I found to a RS was this link, which was written by someone representing the author so it'd be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. As I suspected, all of the reviews for this series have been written by various book review blogs, so they've be considered WP:SPS. The thing about SPS is that while they might be well written or entertaining or popular, none of that makes the SPS a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's fairly rare that we have a blog that would be considered an exception to this rule and we don't really have any in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with Tokyogirl. Sure, there are plenty of reviews on blogs or Amazon, but where are reviews in reliable sources?  The New York Times? The Boston Globe?  The Washington Post? Nada. Nha Trang 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't even find a site for Longfire Press, which is rather odd. I can find their PR firm, though. I find no reviews in reliable sources. The article has been completely written by a Single Purpose Account, and I have to assume that the WP article is part of the publicity campaign. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 3 October 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.