Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pack (novel)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Pack (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A self-published book that has zero notability. There are only two references included in the article, neither of which are actually valid sources. The first is just the books sale page, the other does not even mention the book or author at all. Upon searching for additional sources, I didn't find a thing about the book that wasn't either a first party site (ie Facebook), or the author and his friends spamming various message boards about the book. Neither, of course, is valid. PROD was removed by the article creator with no explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not because its self-published, but that because there aren't any references. Don't assume things like "the author and his friends spamming various message boards". Can you really know who's doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.117.227 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can be sure because the message board messages specifically said things like "I am the author of this book!" or "I'm trying to draw attention to my friend's book!". Not that this has anything to do with why this book in unnotable, it was just to explain the few ghits you would get while searching for sources.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there are two references; one to the Createspace eStore page for the book which includes all vital information on the book, and which backs up the content of the page, and the second refers to the expansion of Amazon's Createspace distribution into Europe. I included no references linking to "messaging boards." Cleanskin2012 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, as I stated in the nomination, neither of those sources are valid for establishing notability, per Wikipedia's policy on WP:Reliable Sources. The comment on the Facebook page and message board messages was just me describing my efforts of trying (and failing) to find any actual valid sources.  Rorshacma (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no reliable sources that contain comments from arm's-length third-party expert sources -- or any others that I could find (this title is a moderately difficult search pattern).  Notability is neither asserted nor present.  There is no problem with recreation if and when notability can be demonstrated with reliable sources.  Ubelowme (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable self-published book. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no reliable sources to show notability for this book. Beings self-published doesn't mean that you can't have a notable product, but this is the case in most situations and it's what the case is for this book. I wish the author well, but the book just isn't notable per WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's reasons. A self published book with no independent WP:RS except its own. --Artene50 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2012 (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.