Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valor (book)

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) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valor (book)[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:N completely. E-book without any reliable, independent sources about it. Fram (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article gives enough secondary sources to confirm the validity of the content. Speaker107 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should remain posted. It has enough credible sources to support the main point of the article which is to explain what the book is about. The sources draw from the authors own description of the book, that's about as good of a source as you can get. Yes it may be biased but the article is not saying "this is the best book ever written," it's simply explaining what it is about. Its giving information and thats the point of wikipedia. If i heard of this book and wanted to know what it was about and so i googled it, this wikipedia article is the first thing i would click on and from there i could find out enough about the book to amke a decision of whether or not i want to read it. That's the idea behind thousands of wikipedia articles: to iform people and help them make informed decision by providing them with acurate information. The info in this article is acurate, is presented form a neutral postion and merely seeks to provide some background on the book. Speaker107 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article on Wikipedia, it isn't sufficient that the subject exist (which isn't disputed). It has to have gotten significant attention in reliable, independent sources. We don't attempt to list everything that exists, but everything which has been noted by other good sources before us. Please reas our notability guideline to see why this article is listed for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i read it and i understand your reasoning for putting it up for deletion. However i still think it has a place here. This is an online encyclopedia and this an article about such a great book belongs here. The sources aren't the best but give it some time and users will dig up better sources, add to the article and make it better. The sources are out there, i jsut ahven't been able to find them and after more people read the book, more sources will become available. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaker107 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you need the sources, then you can have an article, not the other way around. Everyone always expects their book or a book they like (or a band, sporting talent, ...) to become successful and noticed, but in many cases it doesn't happen. I have no way of knowing if this book will become notable, but as long as it isn't, it shouldn't be here. I'm sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia is set up. Fram (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so be it. will it remain in my contributions so that i can add more sources when they become available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaker107 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles are no longer available for public viewing, and it takes a certain rank of Admin to bring it back from the dead. The absolute safest bet is to hit "Edit" and then copy-paste all the coded edit text from your article and save it in a Word file on your computer, or email it to yourself. That way you control the copy and don't risk losing track of it here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Closing admins are generally happy to WP:Userfy an article that is being deleted so that an interested editor can work on bringing up to spec. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pretty clear-cut case of not meeting WP:Notability (books). Can always be re-established later if this book takes off and gets significant external coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mathew. Just not seeing sources to establish notablity. Can recreate if book gets more attention. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to make any credible claim of notability. See also WP:Notability (books)#Self-publication. I suggest userfying the article for User:Speaker107 who expressed interest in expanding the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only published three months ago on the internet, NN self-published author. Could open the floodgates. Bob talk 18:04, 17 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.