Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Horizon (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 Housekeeping closed, article speedy deleted as G11 (non-admin closure). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horizon (Novel)[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. Self-published novel produced online. Author is not notable, though I see his article has been recreated. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the editor's name is a clear violation of our policies, but I am somewhat hesitant to block right now. I'll leave this for another admin to decide. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not notable. Also I can't imagine why you didn't UAA, I did so. Zad68 (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Snow when appropriate... Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no assertions of notability for this self-promoted novel whose author I just blocked for a username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reliable sources for this and besides, this is just pure promotion for a blogging book where the first chapter was posted two days ago. Delete with fire.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. I'm working with the speculation that it's placed up here solely for promotional purposes by the book's author. If not this, I would cite crystalballery, on the grounds that it is not a complete novel, and accordingly, has not been accepted by a major publication house. Especially notable is the conflict of interest insofar as the article's author is concerned - though not a reason to delete unto itself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:28, 23 March 2012 (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.