Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the sword

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) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the sword[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable book by non-notable authors which has only just been published. De728631 (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book written by teens, this should be on wikipedia. its not every day that yu have young authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard400 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Wikipedia has clear rules about what can be added here. (There's some information about that on your user talk page already). We can't use Wikipedia to spread information about things that are still unknown and that haven't been written about in, for instance, papers, magazines or news websites. When that happens for your book, and multiple sources have mentioned it, then the book becomes notable. Meanwhile, focus on your writing. It's great that you enjoy doing it! --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with richard400, teen work should be visible to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.131.205 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that teens want to show the world what they can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.131.205 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this article has been repeatedly speedied (as db-web, since it is published on a website), see Humphery and Bogart and Www.humpheryandbogart.webs.com. No sign of notability or significance, as yet. If it does become notable (that is, if it is written about in other media, for instance newspapers or reliable websites) there can be an article about it, not before. --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bonadea. Blatantly non-notable; self promotion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly done article with no claims of notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 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.