Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary King (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. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary King (novel)

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

PROD removed, hence AfD. This subject does not meet any of the notability guidelines for books and only claim to fame appears to be that it is the first graphic novel sequel to Pride and Prejudice. I found no coverage of the novel on Google News and no sources are in place to show notability. Jebus989^✰ 19:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book has only just been released so there is a lag before it gets in the news. Being the first graphic novel sequel is valuable in its own right. Dlary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Being the first something is not necessarily notable. A 44 page graphic novel published by a publisher I can't trace, by a red-linked author into the bargain, suggests possible self-publication. No references are given other than the book author's site. (I give the author full marks for getting the merchandising going early...) If it were a previously undiscovered sequel by Miss Austen herself, it would have instant notability (subject, of course, to WP:V and WP:RS. By Sophie St Clair, it will have to wait for sales and reviews or other coverage to achieve it. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the author though or the publisher, though can see why you might think I was! The publisher is actually operating through CreateSpace, Amazon's book printing division. Still think it is premature to delete it, should give a chance for the book reviews to come out. Dlary (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already found that you weren't an SPA, and that's why I said 'book author's site'. Self-publication referred to the book, not the article. and from what you've just said, I'm afraid I was right. I'm afraid that the book's success is a thing for the future to show (WP:CRYSTAL) and not for us to anticipate. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in independent sources yet. Article can be recreated when sources exist to demonstrate notability. Pburka (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When reliable sources that show notability exist, the article can be re-created. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An informal sequel does not have any inherent notability. Without more direct coverage it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Them From Space 00:13, 11 April 2011 (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.