Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spirals of Danu


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Spirals of Danu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable self-published book series. Sources are Facebook pages, blogs and community reviews, nothing that would meet criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. The court cases mentioned might make possibly make the author notable, but I can find no record of either, nor do the articles cited as sources for these claims appear to exist. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed a large bulk of the article, as much of it was sourced by merchant sources. Anyone interested in the original version, can see it here. One of the sources looks to be a local paper, but when I search for the headline I get no actual hits. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that I think that this was a fake article, mind you, just that this was probably a very, very local interest piece that never actually got big enough of a notice to get placed on the main website for the Dunfermline Press. As far as local pieces go, they're usable but depreciated greatly- especially if the paper itself doesn't post the article on their website. Although I do note that the WP article for Dunfermline Press marks it as a tabloid, which could bring its reliability into question since we don't normally use tabloids for RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've removed the lawsuit information from the article, as I can find nothing to substantiate either claim that Adil-Smith or the Accipiter Corporation were involved in any legal issues. I searched both the Washington Post and The Scotsman and found nothing. A search in Highbeam brought up nothing as well. Considering that we have zero proof that these lawsuits actually occurred, I've removed the section entirely because without any actual proof that they occurred (not even a public record on the computer at all) we run the risk of legal action from either of the other parties that were supposedly involved. We have no way of knowing if this was an actual lawsuit or if someone was just warned to "lay off" or the equivalent thereof- that's why it's so incredibly important to have reliable sources. If it wasn't an actual lawsuit, then we run the risk of the involved parties saying that we're posting false information. We can't report on things without some actual proof we can all see. If someone can find this proof, we can always re-add the information. I'm a little leery about the fact that nobody has really reported on the lawsuits in general, despite two major papers supposedly covering the events. This doesn't mean that the lawsuits didn't happen, but it does kind of hammer home that they weren't particularly noteworthy lawsuits. When it comes down to it, even if we do find proof to show that the news articles were written, three articles (including the local coverage) aren't enough to show notability in this instance. This is a solidly non-notable series. I wish the author well, but this just isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. It looks to be relatively popular for a self-published series, but popularity doesn't equate to notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no RS, seems promotional BlueSalix (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. So, somebody has got a book which is available on Kindle from Amazon... anyone can do that: I know people who have been willing to spend money to do that, and who are now waiting to get enough sales to recoup their expense. So, the book has good reviews on Facebook... the very fact that that is mentioned suggests a lack of reviews anywhere significant. So, someone's book has been the subject of a report in The Scotsman newspaper last month, under the title "Debut Author Grounds Airport"... only the Scotsman's website has no record of any such report. (Also, the title suggests that the report, if it exists, is principally about an incident at an airport, rather than about the book.) Likewise for the other attempts the author of the article has made to make the book seem significant. OK, how about searching for evidence myself? Well, the first page of Google hits consists of Facebook, Goodreads, Twitter, Amazon, and Wikipedia. The next page starts with a blog, and goes on from there. And so it goes on... the more I look at the case, the less it looks as though the book is at all notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 25 January 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.