Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sentinel Trilogy


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Sentinel Trilogy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Book series with little evidence of notability and written with a clear conflict of interest - sourced largely to blogs and the subject's own website, the only really claim of notability is that it is a #1 Amazon bestseller, a claim not supported by any reliable source (and the amazon store states otherwise) Jac 16888  Talk 11:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the end, sales mean absolutely nothing. Something can sell insanely well, yet never meet notability guidelines. Given a few minutes, I could probably point you towards about a dozen romance novels that have landed on the NYT bestseller list, yet never received enough coverage to merit an entry. Heck, Laurell K Hamilton is a millionairess that writes urban fantasies that routinely end up on the NYT bestseller lists, yet her latest book (Affliction) doesn't pass notability guidelines. All that selling well means is that the book and/or its author will receive coverage in reliable sources. Now as far as the sources in the article go, only one is even remotely close to being a reliable source, the one from Cambridge News. However that one falls under local coverage, which doesn't really count towards much. The others are either WP:PRIMARY sources or they're from non-notable book review blogs, which are almost always a dime a dozen when it comes to book reviews. It takes an awful lot for a blog to be considered reliable and none of these cut it. It doesn't help that the article has some promotional tinged notes to it, which I think is due to the COI. This just isn't notable enough for its own article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the thing about Amazon bestseller lists is that they're notoriously unreliable because they're relatively easily messed with. Most of the time the claims of bestselling are usually because someone is looking at extremely limited and specific categories (ex: bestseller in Kindle>Fantasy>Books about boys>with a hat) or because the status was achieved through the author giving the book out for free on a certain day. There are also cases where people have gotten a large enough group of people together and specified that they should all purchase X amounts of the ebook on a certain day, which will make it a bestseller. Yes, some authors have actually done that and some have done this on a larger scale with the bigger bestseller lists out there, which is why being on something such as the NYT list means little to nothing on here as far as notability goes. I'm not saying that this author has done this, just explaining for him (and any incoming editors) as to why bestselling status doesn't amount to much on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; There is no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2013 (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.