Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undying Mercenaries


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Undying Mercenaries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of the least notable series of books of this non-notable author. None of them has more than 2 holdings in WorldCat even listed in WorldCat   DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep DGG's reasons for proposing this deletion are specious and insufficient. I choose to believe that by "non-notable" and "least notable" he means not well known.  (If he means "not good" and/or "not interesting", that's an opinion which is also not a good reason for deletion.)
 * I don't know how WorldCat works, but it may not be an accurate indication of B. V. Larson's notability. According to the Wikipedia page on the author, he's released more than 50 books electronically via Amazon and eleven of his books have been reviewed by more than 10,000 reviewers receiving high ratings.  DGG's recommendation doesn't consider these factors.Thomasjones44 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about ratings on places like Amazon and Goodreads, those will not contribute to notability as those are considered to be self-published sources that undergo little to no editorial oversight. The thing about WorldCat holdings is that while an author/book/series can be notable without being in libraries, it's extremely unlikely for this to be the case and it's fairly rare for someone to pass notability guidelines and not have multiple library holdings. I'm aware that it's difficult for self-published authors to get their books in libraries and to get coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be notable, but it is a requirement. Sometimes self-published authors can become notable (look at Hugh Howey) but it's usually pretty rare for them to become notable per Wikipedia's requirements. Don't take this personally if the author's page and the series page are deleted - there are a lot of good self-published authors that should have pages but just don't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Other than a mention of book 4 being a popular Audible Book, there really isn't much out there. Most of what I found were in places that run close to being a RS (like SFFAudio) but weren't really places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. In the end this is just another series that has received a bit of a fandom, but never gained attention from reliable sources. I know that it's frustrating - heck, I've got multiple self-published (or predominantly self-published, as sometimes you'll get series that are almost solely self-published except for select versions of the work, like audiobook or print versions) series that I'd love to add to Wikipedia, yet they've never gained the coverage they deserve. (Shakes fist at RS for not covering D. Rus's Play to Live series.) In the end though, this coverage is required for notability purposes and it just isn't out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whether or not the author should have a wiki page is a whole other kettle of fish, and arguments on that should be made on places other than here. In terms of this book series, I've not read or it heard of it until now so I don't know anything in terms of quality. But what does seem clear is that, as stated before, the series has only attracted a scattering of attention. What could we cite as reliable sources here? I recommend deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Searches turned up nothing which would meet the notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (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.