Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relatos desde el Umbral

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 (snow). Neutrality^talk 05:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relatos desde el Umbral[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. Only review provided is a blog, and Google search ("Relatos desde el Umbral" Alamo) only brings up booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any links to this beyond booksellers and non-notable review blogs. Searches under the author's name does not bring back anything as far as this book goes, nor does it show notability as far as he goes. (So no ability to just create an article for the author himself.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I find no indication the book has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The article author admitted on the Help desk that the reason he wrote the article was that there was not much information about the book in internet. Wikipedia is not a place to give coverage to a subject which deserves more coverage. —teb728 t c 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage available other than booksellers and a couple of blog posts not entirely independent of the author — frankie (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NBOOK has not been met. Nobody's suggesting that points 2,3,4 and 5 are met, which leaves 1 - significant coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Colon el Tom 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book, non-notable authour. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 15 November 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.