Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never After
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. NW (Talk) 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Never After (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the criteria for books - has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, nor is it notable in any other way. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Nomination completed for IP editor. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 06:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am having trouble locating sources on this given the number of works with similar names, as it is I am inclined to delete UltraMagnusspeak 10:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author published by Simon and Schuster imprint is notable I think.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books) says nothing about who publishes the book. By the five criteria there, it fails. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you spend some time looking at this website you might feel differently [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does 8 optical illusions on Yahoo! Health have to do with this? Joe Chill (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely nothing. But I thought they were kind of cool. Did you feel different after looking at them for a while? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does 8 optical illusions on Yahoo! Health have to do with this? Joe Chill (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you spend some time looking at this website you might feel differently [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Young author and student not yet sufficiently notable to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. ChildofMidnight renamed this to the author, but there is no proof that the author is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. Per Amazon, the book is scheduled to be published October 20. It would have been much better if the editors who set off this muddle by drive-by templating articles from a new editor, minutes after the initial postings, had instead made reasonable efforts to be helpful. It's not unheard of for new authors published by major trade houses to be notable, and I can't see what earthly good is done by forcing a deletion discussion just before reviews and such can be expected to be published. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, having published a book (since this has been moved to the author, for some reason) doesn't make someone notable at all. Neither does it make the book notable. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Author with one published book. After I removed the sections that dealt with the book alone, there just isn't much there. TNXMan 11:44, 22 October 2009 (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.