Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New-adult fiction

Add links
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 keep. Despite the shambles of an AfD, I can see no other way to close this Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New-adult fiction[edit]

New-adult fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advertisement for an attempted neologism coined by somebody at St. Martin's Press, and for various self-publishers attempting to piggyback on it. Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is, but I am finding a few sources to show that it's somewhat notable, even though this is really did originate as a form of marketing. If I can't find enough to show that it warrants an article on its own, I'd suggest a redirect to a subsection in young-adult fiction. I know that this is sort of OR in and of itself, but a lot of people are calling this "YA with sex" and the age group is pretty much the older bracket of the YA group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some dramatic improvements to the page, essentially nuking the previous version, which used a lot of non-notable blogs and the like to source it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Young-adult_fiction#New_adult_fiction. There has been quite a bit of coverage for the genre, but so far it's not really that distinguished or covered enough from the YA genre to really merit a separate entry at this point in time. Will it eventually get to that point? Yes, if the coverage so far is any indication. However, we have to go by what we have in RS at this point in time and not by what might be. It might end up dropping off the radar entirely, after all. I propose merging the information in the article to the subsection I've created in YA fiction. If/when it gets more info, we can always un-redirect. As a note, I again want to say that I've dramatically reduced the article from its previous state, which was very OR-ish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems like a sensible suggestion. Both Orangemike and Tokyogirl know this industry well and both make salient points. If others in the industry start using the term and the concept itself gets further coverage then by all means. At the moment, it looks like a single publisher invented the term, remains among the few that use it but managed to get some coverage for the original announcement of their "idea". At the moment, it looks mostly like a coat-rack for promoting the books and authors that occupy the stable of that particular publisher. One person using the term constantly is not the same as many people using it occasionally. Stalwart111 06:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep- it's still a neologism. St. Martins isn't the only company using it and it's become especially popular with self-published authors, but it's still very much a neologism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keep 1) I have to question why this is suddenly being brought up for deletion. 2) New-adult is a new fiction category that covers the age gap between young adult and adult. New adults are 18 to 25 year olds. That "its become especially popular with self-published authors" shows that it's a real category. It's not a "neologism" it's a category. It's notable, and the article is expanding. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    New Adult fiction is notable as a category: NYTimes, Chicago Sun-Times, Poughkeepsie Journal, The Guardian-U.K., and ABC News to name a few.
It came to my attention when I discovered a spamlink to St. Martin's Press and a wikilink to this term being inserted into an article on a book from another publisher in a spammy way. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike, can you show us the links? Malke 2010 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The books have always been out there, but apparently publishers have ignored them. I read an ebook back in 2010, and then started reading these author blogs. I discovered that in their experiences publishers and agents rejected them out of hand because they had young people having sex. St. Martin's Press did not coin the phrase or use this as a marketing ploy. They knew about this genre. But agents and publishers have always rejected them. But then Amazon came along because they knew there were lots of people who couldn't get an agent/publisher and wanted to get published anyway. That apparently included authors with books about young people in college falling in love and having sex. St. Martin's Press wanted some manuscripts so they held a contest. They didn't invent anything except a name for themselves among these authors. The article needs to develop, but it's not there as a promotional or advertising article. And if we delete this article, Wikipedia will be the only site that doesn't have anything about this legitimate genre. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keep This is an entirely different category to YA. YA books are marketed to teens and up. NA books are marketed to ADULTS but the protagonists are of 18 - 26+ age and are finding their way in life,relationships,careers (In some instances the protaganists are younger/teens but the subject matter is mature (addiction, abuse etc.) and these books are NOT marketed to teens or YA readers. As a reader of NA and NOT YA I find it offensive that you would remove this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.147.205 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — 67.20.147.205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose. Keep New Adult should be a seperate page as it is not a branch of YA and therefore should not be associated with it. It is a fully seperate catagory of its own and people calling it YA with sex are those who didn't understand the catagory when it was first formed. It is a catagory in its own right and is not just a marketing tool by one publishers. Merging the wiki page with Young Adult would be damaging to the catagory. St. Martins press though they tried to create this catagory they actually failed. The term they invented has just been widely used by others, they actually have little to do with the catagory. It is a very large catagory now and has articles in USA today http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/04/15/new-adult-genre-is-the-hottest-category-in-book-publishing/2022707/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.65.215 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — 2.29.65.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
New Adult also has its own catagory on goodreads, amazon and kobo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.65.215 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — 2.29.65.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose. Keep No legitimate reasons given to delete, especially after new edits (disliking the presentation of something is not grounds for deletion; it is grounds for editing/fixing). Furthermore, redirecting would only make information less accessible, making it more difficult for publishers, authors, and readers to learn more about a genre that is only increasing in notoriety. There is an excessive amount of information both showing the relevance and individuality of the category from other categories/genres. This entire discussion seems to be an exercise in administrivia. Cfox101 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to above target per Tokyogirl. I note that the article itself states that the publisher that supposedly coined it said that it is "similar to YA" and "a sort of an ‘older YA’ or ‘new adult’". Ansh666 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I'm leaving for a while, if consensus changes I'd probably support it. Cheers everyone, Ansh666 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Comment I assume those !voting oppose above actually mean keep, but having never contributed here are none the wiser. That's fine. The list of potential sources given above has a few not-so-great ones including a blog and at least one that would seem to be a syndicate/copy of another article in that list. But I think the Guardian article says it all really:

Publishers love creating new genres in order to try to sell more books and the newest addition to the genre pool is "new adult" fiction. That's the label that has been created for books in which the main characters transform from teenagers into adults and try to navigate the difficulties of post-adolescent life.

Is there really any suggestion this is anything else? Stalwart111 03:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are "not so great?" What exactly do you think your selective quote from the Guardian says? It seems to me it's saying this is a legitimate genre. Genres aren't created by spontaneous generation. They're created by writers and the marketplace. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that most of the "keep" crowd (the strange string of non-AfD-style "oppose" !votes) seem to want this kept and seem to want the article to describe it as a legitimate genre. Unfortunately, the sources seem to consistently disagree. At best, if this were kept, we would still likely have to describe it as the sales strategy of a handful of authors and publishers, which is exactly what can be verified by reliable sources. On the sources themselves, I couldn't work out the context of the Jezebel one but it seemed a bit like a blog, the Poughkeepsie Journal is a copy of the USA Today one and the ABC link wasn't working for me but since has, and then stopped working again. It's not a matter of there not being sources, there just didn't seem to be any particular good ones that didn't describe it as anything other than a marketing tag-line. Stalwart111 04:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of 'oppose' instead of keep is likely because I wrote that. I wasn't thinking of an AfD when I did that. I've been involved in a moderated discussion and 'support' and 'oppose' are on my mind. The IPs appear to be following along since a quick check of their contribs shows they've not done this before. You appear to be making more out of that than is necessary. Please remain civil. Just because they're IPs and apparently newcomers doesn't mean you can bite them and not assume good faith. Regarding the sources, I disagree with your interpretation which seems aimed at discrediting them. But more importantly, you've provided no Wikipedia policy to show any good reason for deleting this article. The above sources are reliable sources that establish New-adult fiction as a genre. It doesn't matter how the genre came about. It matters that it's notable and there are reliable sources to back that up. You haven't shown otherwise. In fact, no one supporting a deletion has shown what Wikipedia policy this article violates. Not one of you. And to the editor whose edit summary says he suspects socking/meat puppets, please go and get a Checkuser. I for one, live in Long Beach, CA, so go match up the IP addresses with me for starters. And while you're at it, please show the policy that says someone reading Wikipedia but has never edited here and weighs-in on an AfD is necessarily a sock. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine - they are welcome to contribute and I'm not suggesting anything other than that someone has noted (somewhere) that this has been nominated for deletion and people who have never contributed are being encouraged to come here and "vote" thinking it will "save" the article. It won't because AfD is not a vote and the arguments will be weighed by an administrator. The oppose votes won't be given less weight because they said "oppose" rather than "keep", but they might be given less weight because they express opinions not particularly based on policy. If people are going to be encouraged to come here to contribute, they should have the basics explained to them first. I'm not trying to be uncivil, it's just a waste of that energy on the part of whoever is "whipping for votes". I don't think it should be deleted, I think it should be redirected until we have a consistent set of sources that define what it is and what it is about, beyond what the Guardian (and most others) suggest. I don't even strongly oppose keeping it, but if we do, I can't see the resulting article (again, based on what we can WP:V with WP:RS) being very positive. Stalwart111 05:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you fail to mention any policy that this article violates. The reliable sources verify that this is a genre. The article should stay. So it seems, you aren't winning and now you rely on accusing "someone" with "whipping up votes." Really? And where is your evidence for that? Who is this editor doing this? Just because you're not getting the response you seek, doesn't mean anyone is doing anything untoward here. Please read WP:AGF. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:V. Of note, what you qualify as a reliable source may not be what others do. By the way, I never said that those accounts were socks or meatpuppets; I only used the SPA tag as context for the IP/red-linked accounts. Ansh666 06:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (Also, you might find WP:AAGF, WP:AAAGF, and WP:AAGFAAGF funny )[reply]
  • It's not an "accusation" and I couldn't care less about "winning" (WP isn't about "winning", it's about volunteering to produce an encyclopaedia). AfDs almost never get this many "hits" from outsiders and new editors unless someone outside WP has posted something on Facebook or a forum or something like that. It happens all the time and I've experienced it many times before. It's got nothing to do with WP:AGF because I assume it's someone who genuinely (in good faith) believes the article should stay and thinks that is the best way to achieve that. It's not and that's my only point. As I said, I'm not actually strongly opposed to keeping it. Stalwart111 06:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an unusual interest in having this article deleted. You offer no policy that is being violated. Instead, you make accusations of off-wiki canvassing. And yet you show no evidence and you point to no editor who is doing this. There's something very suspect about this AfD. And it isn't the newbies showing up. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please! I came to this thread completely at random, participated in several others from the same day's log and am an AfD regular. It's on my userpage - I make no secret of it. There's at least one thread from the "New Adult Book Club" that highlights this discussion. It's closed to non-members but the google search result makes no secret of it. Like I said, not a huge problem, just a waste of energy. Stalwart111 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went to that link and all I found was: No results found for "NA Wiki Page in Danger of Deletion" Malke 2010 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. There seems to be an issue here between those who know Wikipedia and those who know the publishing industry and the developmental process of fiction genres. I don't know how to format these comments according to your very odd and complex Wiki style, but I do know publishing, fiction, and very specifically the New Adult genre (I'm a published fiction writer with a New Adult book releasing this year). New Adult was not created by publishers, and it is not a marketing ploy any more than any genre is a marketing ploy. Genres exist so that readers know the parameters of the books they are buying, and in the old days of brick and mortar bookstores, publishers knew how to shelve books. New Adult is not adult fiction in that it deals specifically with issues unique to the 18-25 age group. It is not YA fiction for the same reason. While some people have referred to it (very erroneously) as "sexed up YA," that is simply not accurate. The higher levels of sexual activity in New Adult books stem from the fact that sexuality and sexual relationships are a crucial factor in the lives of most 18-25 year olds. The New Adult genre has been discussed in the New York Times, USA Today, NBC News and is a searchable category for books on Amazon. St. Martin's Press was the first entity to use the term "New Adult" in a special call they held. While the special call never resulted in much, and St. Martin's has not been a major contributor to the development of the genre, it is highly appropriate that they be listed in the article and given credit for originating the term. New Adult is in fact the first digital era genre, developed from the ground up in a reader-driven push rather than a publisher-driven one. As such, it has been heavily influenced by self publishing authors. It is very important to note that while the term "New Adult" was coined by a publisher, the genre itself is actually only now reaching the mainstream presses. This is a very unique factor that separates New Adult as a grassroots, digital era genre. Numerous books categorized as New Adult have made the NYT and USAT bestseller lists, including Jennifer L. Armentrout's Wait For You which hit #1 on the NYT list just a few weeks ago. As a side note, I have recently written an article on the history and development of New Adult fiction for InD'tale magazine. The article will be published next week along with an interview with a New York Times Bestselling New Adult author. I'd be happy to provide the link to that article when it is published. I think it is important that anyone assessing the information on New Adult be someone who is very well acquainted with the publishing industry and fiction genres rather than someone who is merely familiar with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srpaulsen4 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Srpaulsen4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Paulsen, are you a published writer, or a self-publisher? I've only been involved with the publishing world since 1984 (see Publishers Weekly July 13, 1984 for a picture of me), which I suspect may be before you were born. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orangemike, While the fact that you differentiate between "published" and "self-published" is an indication that you have very little understanding of the industry at this point, and particularly of the industry with regards to a genre like New Adult, I am published, by a "real" honest to goodness publishing house, with editors, and cover artists and everything...even owned by a great big media corp. And, not that it's any of your business, but in 1984 I was a junior in high school, so I'm also not anywhere near as young as you indicate you think I am, not that my age should have any bearing on my knowledge of this subject, nor on my worthiness to contribute to this forum. 24.9.84.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
And you are welcome here (AfD and WP in general). The problem is that WP is not about what we each know or believe, but about what can be verified by reliable sources. In that sense, it doesn't matter if you are an expert or not (though even that point has been much-debated, including by WP's founders). However, you'll find several WP regulars who have contributed to this discussion do have an industry background and, combined with their understanding of WP policy, have commented here on that basis. You are not required to disclose it but it might be helpful to go back to whoever is encouraging people to come here and "vote" (on Facebook or a forum or whatever) and try to organise a coherent argument on the basis of policy and guidelines. Otherwise a bunch of people are going to waste a bunch of productive writing time. Stalwart111 05:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence for any of this? Malke 2010 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um... the fact that it mirrors the dozens of other cases where the same thing happened? It's no big deal, nobody is getting upset or angry, it's just a matter of minimising damage and wasted time. Stalwart111 06:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not evidence. Show us the evidence. It sounds more like you don't have a policy to point to so you divert attention with this off wiki canvassing scheme. All right, let's see it. Show us the blog, or the Facebook page. You're making yourself sound so knowledgeable about these matters. Obviously, you're experienced. Let's see your evidence. And let's check for socks while we're here. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a link above to at least one off-wiki discussion about it, but that's not the point. I couldn't care less if people want to talk about it away from this discussion and even WP has off-WP IRC channels. I have no skin in this game and I'm not (ever) going to get emotional about it, so accusing me of some bizarre, so-far-undeclared hatred for a genre I've never heard of won't bother me much. You need to relax and actually have a read of some of the stuff I've posted before firing off an angry half-response responding to things I haven't raised (like sock-puppets, which I never suggested). Just relax mate, it's just Wikipedia. But the hysterics are doing more damage to your cause than anything I could add. I'll happily demonstrate I have no real interest in this by walking away. I'm done. Stalwart111 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree very much with user Malke2010. I believe the content is underdeveloped. With cleaning and additions, the page will not read as neologism because it is indeed not. As I understand Wikipedia is to be used as a community forum to build credible information on an topic. New adult is an established category. As you can see from the publications that Malke2010 has provided you with. The information just needs to be added. This will take a moment, but it can be done if you allow the users to do so. This category is credible and many publishers acknowledge this as again stated in several of the articles Malke2010. If you would like I can provide more sources. The main New York publishers of New Adult or NA as it is sometimes called by the readership has been Simon and Schuster, St. Martin's Press, Hachette, and Random House. Many have digital lines for publication of the category. Cite discusses Simon and Schuster "new adult" line. [1] Cite discusses Random House's new adult line known as "Flirt" [2] More discussion of the new line here [3] And I believe you've already seen that St. Martin's Press acknowledges NA so I will not list. This discusses Grand Central Publishing (Hachette imprint) expanding to New Adult[4].
  • Outside of New York publishers, many well known independent publishers have acknowledged the category. Entangled Publishing.[5] Crescent Moon Press.[6]. Swoon Romance (part of Month9Books)[7] I could go on, but again repetitive.
  • Basically, I wanted to reinforce that the information is out there to be added to the wiki and make it cleaner. We just have to be given time to do so. Also, I do not advise merging NA to the young adult wiki. Seeing as how the new adult books in bookstores feature 18+ aged characters (legal aged) and are placed in the General Fiction section of most bookstores such as Barnes and Noble, placing the information there would be vastly inaccurate and very confusing for the average wiki user looking for credible information about the category itself.
  • Final note: Amazon has added a "new adult/college" category to their website.[8]. So as you can see Amazon acknowledges the distinct category as well. - Activereader26 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is something highly questionable about this AfD. Those opposing are doing so with an inordinate amount of energy considering the topic and they are doing it without any legitimate Wikipedia policy to show why this article should be deleted. Instead, two editors here, Stalwart and Ansh666, are repeatedly accusing the editors who want to keep the article with canvassing off Wikipedia and socking. Yet they haven't shown any proof of that. Nor have they shown any Wikipedia policy that this article violates which would justify deleting it. Not one policy. Orangemike didn't show any policy that is being violated when he nominated the article. Something is wrong here. This appears to be a highly questionable AfD. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I told you already: WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:V (Orangemike had WP:SPAM/WP:PROMOTION too, but that IMO is going a bit far). Also, I explicitly said, twice, that I wasn't accusing you or anyone here of socking/meating (is that a term? heh.) Ansh666 06:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NEO fails. A Google search of 'new-adult fiction' brings back 57,000,000 hits. The article meets WP:RS and WP:V. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Amazon and various publishers acknowledge it is a genre, then it is. Dream Focus 08:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seeing as someone has now explained why this wiki was flagged let me counteract a say why the wiki does not fulfill those criteria and should therefore not be deleted. It is hardly a neologism as it is now a widly used term with amazon and goodreads deeming it a catgory and publishers calling books NA in press releases. Most people in the book industry have heard the term even if they dont understand the catagory. As for reliable sources the article includes a wide range of legitamate sources including many newspapers and even USA Today. This also makes all the information verifiable. A balanced view is kept including all the under-researched nonsense that was written when the catagory first started to appear (NA is not sexed up YA and therefore this wiki should certainly not be merged with YA. The books are not aimed at and are not suitable for under 18's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.65.215 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: If you voted "oppose" it might be a good idea to go back and change it to "Keep," to prevent any confusion. You can strike out the oppose, as I have done for mine above, and put in Keep right after it. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it for them. That was actually user Cfox's doing, to organize the IP "votes" (I, like others on WP, don't like that word too much). Ansh666 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that was my bad! I love Wikipedia, but am still a novice at best. Thanks for fixing it. Cfox101 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there aren't isn't already enough evidence to satisfy whatever sorts of "requirements" exist to "prove" the term and the article are legitimately worthy of being in Wikipedia, there is this: "Coming Soon : Writing the New Adult Novel: How to Write and Sell ‘New Adult’ Fiction, to be published by Writer’s Digest Books in 2014. This book for writers will be a hands-on guide featuring essential information, steps, and techniques to guide writers in creating engaging stories featuring eighteen- to twenty-six-year-old protagonists against the backdrop of the emerging adult experience." Srpaulsen4 (talk)

That's not 'evidence,' for use on Wikipedia. For one thing, it reads like an advert which is not allowed, and 2) we use Wikipedia policy to determine whether or not the article should be deleted. In this case, the question is whether or not this is a genre and not a WP:NEO, and if it's a genre, what WP:RS reliable sources are there that WP:V verify this. And is it WP:notable. Those are the only questions. It's not a neologism. Reliable sources show it's a genre. So it's verified. Amazon and Barnes and Noble consider it a category and B&N has dedicated shelf space for it in stores. There are 57,000,000 hits for New-adult fiction, which means it's WP:notable. The authors are featured on news shows frequently, and just this morning on CBS news. That also shows it's notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this...I literally had NEVER heard of the genre until today. I'm 19 years old and always wondered where I fit...am I a teen or adult? This blended over into my reading and I've always wondered where to go to find books that fit my age range because I don't relate to older adult protagonists. Anyway, this article helped clarify that. Plus, it's a good resource for writers wanting to know what markets are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanseLacrymosa (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While this concept was coined by a publisher in 2009, various sources cited show this has become known as its own distinct type of fiction, not as a branch of something else. Bill Pollard (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2013 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20010205/27465-news-shorts.html#id676106-27-a
  2. ^ http://www.atrandom.com/eoriginals/
  3. ^ http://paidcontent.org/2012/11/29/with-new-digital-imprints-random-house-taps-self-published-authors/
  4. ^ http://www.rtbookreviews.com/rt-daily-blog/breaking-news-grand-central-publishing-expanding-its-romance-imprints
  5. ^ http://www.entangledpublishing.com/submission-information/embrace-submissions/
  6. ^ http://crescentmoonpress.com/submissions.html
  7. ^ http://www.myswoonromance.com/#!about/ciaa
  8. ^ http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/6487838011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_2_6_last
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New-adult_fiction&oldid=1138122110"