Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapture's End

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 --JForget 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture's End

Sci-fi novel by an author without an article. Google brings up no relevant ghits for either the title or the author. Strongly suspect this book is self-published or through a vanity press, if it exists at all. Copyright status for image of book cover claims that it was uploaded by the copyright holder, so it may be self-promotion. — Gwalla | Talk 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, but also the entire article appears to be an unsourced violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the book and the author appear to be non-notable. No references by reliable sources anywhere. GoogleBooks has nothing[1] and even the plain Google search returns only 41 hits[2] for the author's name, most of which appear to be false positives. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Nsk92 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like there was a duplicate article at Rapture’s End. That article's creation seems to predate the AFD nomination, so I just turned it into a redirect for now. — Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Published by vanity press Xlibris; apparently not held in any WorldCat libraries; no discoverable reviews or other attention. Fails WP:BK big time. Deor (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding zippo by way of this book being noticed -- thus, not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are both the straight-quote and curly-quote version of the article up for AfD? If so, need to add the other one to the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, confusion -- one's now a redirect. Got it. Ne-ver-mind. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. My search for sources was similarly fruitless. Non-notable work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Deor. Merenta (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (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.