Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sins of the Fathers (novel)

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 — Caknuck (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sins of the Fathers (novel)[edit]

Contested prod, non-notable album. The closest thing I could find a reliable source for this novel is a review of a novel with a similar name written by a John Richmond.

Admittedly self-published. Carados (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete ..."is a representation of the new wave of self-publishing by authors embracing technology... in an effort to gain the attention of the larger corporate publishers." Cute. Nice try, but not notable and shouldn't be encouraged further. Page reads like Cliffs Notes anyhoo. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I would've speedied it with db-spam. This long-winded self-promotion was created in its current form on the first edit TheBilly (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did orginally, but I have been yelled at for being too trigger happy with speedy delete tags, so I removed it. -Carados (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, is this attempting to twist "had to self publish" into a claim of edgy originality and foresight? Self-published books are not inherently non-notable, but they need pretty good secondary sourcing to establish that notability, and this book doesn't have it. Lankiveil (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, subject isn't inherently notable and there are no useable secondary sources to establish notability - Dumelow (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Self-publishing is going to become more and more prevalent, especially with the shift towards e-books which renders traditional publishers obsolete. Wikipedia inclusion policy will need to be updated on this before long. No vote on this particular release as I lack sufficient knowledge of the subject to process an informed opinion as to whether it is notable enough for inclusion. 23skidoo (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:52, 5 January 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.