Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatlander: Book One

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flatlander: Book One

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable book. Article appears to have been created by the books author. No sources and google searches not finding any coverage. noq (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a book self-published through iUniverse. There is a review here but in my opinion that is insufficient for the WP:NBOOK criteria or broader WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Blue Ink Reviews charges for their reviews, so they wouldn't be considered a RS on here. It looks like their Kirkus review was part of the site's paid service, although I will say that Kirkus is not really seen as a RS anymore by more than a few of us on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that payment tariff. (Pricy too - significantly more than I was paid in the past when reviewing for print publications.) AllyD (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show notability for this book and it doesn't look like there is any coverage out there that was written by a independent, reliable source. Everything was either paid for by the author (or a representative) or it was written by the author himself. There isn't even any coverage from the book blogs and while those can't be used as a RS on here, the lack of chatter from that sector is sometimes fairly telling - especially for self-published or indie books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "Kirkus is not really seen as a RS anymore by more than a few of us on here", coola tentatively raises hand ... but only if it is an old review from kirks, and would not rely on a later one for notability... Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, very early KR reviews would likely be usable. I tend to use them if they're from the 1990s or earlier, but those are harder to come by sometimes - good point! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.