Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon heloise ancient rebirth

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon heloise ancient rebirth

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

This self-published book does fulfill the WP:NBOOK Domdeparis (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have received exactly zero coverage by anyone outside of a few obscure internet forums. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article needs to be deleted. The book is a a self published one, and it sells all over the world, including Amazon, Google books and many other vendors like http://www.barnesandnoble.com/mobile/w/simon-heloise-sergiu-prodan/1122618012?ean=9781517183479

http://www.prince-books.com/book/9781517183479

http://m.yes24.com/Goods/Detail/20324647?acode=101

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781517183479/Simon-Heloise-Ancient-Rebirth-Volume-1517183472/.

https://www.tanum.no/_skjonnlitteratur/romaner/simon-heloise-sergiu-prodan-9781517183479 I for one bough the book when it was on the top 10 bestseller books at the Super Hero category on Amazon UK.

I'm not done yet with editing the article, just because no major newspaper wrote something about this book doesn't mean that it is not notable

The fact that it sells in paperback form from Europe to Australia and Korea means it is very notable, other wise no vendor was willing to distribute it in their stores. By the end of the week I hope to finish up the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob09der (talk • contribs)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, yes, things do need to be written about in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Such sources must indicate how the subject meets notability guidelines, in this case those for books. Please review the guidelines, and if you have such sources, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having independent RS to indicate notability, which even the page creator seems to concede. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm going to search more deeper for a more notable reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob09der (talk • contribs) 09:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (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.