Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla (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.  Sandstein  09:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Valhalla (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Novel with no substantive claim of notability under WP:NBOOK, written by a redlinked author and resting entirely on unreliable sources like "Valhallapedia" (a self-created Wiki devoted to promoting the novel on Wikia, thus failing both WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:USERG) and GoodReads. Not even one iota of actual media coverage in a real reliable source has been shown here. A novel is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that it exists — it takes reliable source coverage, not the author's own self-created PR presence, to get a book in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.    Mr RD     16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There actually has been some press coverage. Joel Cornah of the SciFiFantasy Network held an interview with the author Ari Bach. They discussed Bach's writing process, characterization, and the up-and-coming release of the third part of the trilogy. Valhalla also ranks #88 in Books > Teens > Literature & Fiction > Gay & Lesbian on Amazon. Please do not let this amazing book fade into obscurity. --24.31.176.254 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page about notability: "A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

"The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

Valhalla does meet this criterion. There was an interview on the Sci-Fi Fantasy Network webpage. There are plenty of non-advertisement reviews of the book on Goodreads, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Google Play. Sky-fi-fangirl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviews of a book only count toward the book's notability if they're published in reliable sources, like newspapers, magazines, literary journals and the like — they don't count if they're on user-generated content sites like Goodreads, or commercial sales sites like Amazon, B&N or an ebookstore. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reviews on Amazon and Goodreads are not usable to show notability, as they're considered to be self-published sources. Anyone can write one and while I'm not saying that Bach has done this, there have been authors who have had fake reviews posted to sway the ratings in one direction or another. Robert Stanek is notorious for having done this on Amazon in the past. As far as the Sci-Fi Fantasy Network goes, that wouldn't be usable because the site doesn't have anything posted about their editorial process or really anything about them in general. As far as I can tell, this site appears to have launched within the last year and hasn't gained any sort of coverage that would have them be considered a reliable source despite not having verifiable editorial oversight. It does look impressive, like it could eventually be considered one, but we have to judge reliability based in the here and now, just like we have to judge notability in the here and now. In any case, a search didn't bring up anything other than blog posts, primary sources, and other places that Wikipedia would consider usable. I wish the author well, but right now this book just isn't notable enough to pass NBOOK. I also have to note that the page is borderline WP:COPYVIO in some places, as it's taken quite liberally from the official book jacket. This is just your run of the mill non-notable indie book. Don't take this the wrong way - some of my good friends are struggling indie authors, but the thing is that it's incredibly difficult for indie and self-published authors to gain coverage. For every Hugh Howey there are thousands who never get that big break, but the thing is that without coverage in RS to assert notability there's just nothing that can be done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as this does not meet WP:GNG. A search brings up unreliable reviews only. some libraries do appear to hold it like here and worldCat does indicate some others  but this does not lead to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 23 October 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.