Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Guardians' Bane

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. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardians' Bane[edit]

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

Neither book nor author are notable, as a quick Google search verifies. The publisher isn't even notable, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I believe that the author's minority status in her own literary community warrents this entry be continued in both listing and development. This female, Australian author writes outside the traditionally accepted genres of her country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamYorr (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) — IamYorr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, I can't fault you for believing that. Problem is, Wikipedia articles need reliable sources that prove notability of the subject of an article, and those can't be had on this topic. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does that mean a author must be dead and famous and have many review written on and around their writing to prove notability?Gemstone101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC). {{spa|Gemstone101}][reply]
    - Dead, no, famous, yes. No secondary coverage, no notability--that's how an encyclopedia works. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, delete it. Coverage of my novel will occur elsewhere.Gemstone101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - You can recreate it with a few good sources. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 04:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find independent sources. No prejudice against re-creation should the subject become notable at a later date. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (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.