Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Selandra Chronicles

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Selandra Chronicles[edit]

Contested PROD. Notice was removed without improvement to article, and with claim of "removing errors." I found no sources related to this, articles creator has a clear conflict of interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a great example of why we need speedy deletion for WP:NN fiction.

Above comment by User:Toddst1

Right, thanks. One of these days I'll learn to sign my posts. I'm such a noob. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no results found on google or amazon searches. (should be speedy delete). Martin451 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, there should at least be a speedy category for unpublished works, which this seems to fit. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NawlinWiki. Brianga (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in OCLC WorldCat, and the author not there either. The reason we do not have speedy for books is that this needs to be actually checked; I have seen equally bad articles for books that do in fact turn outto be notable--even to have won major prizes and been in the higher category of famous, and get nominated for deletion without anyone checking. .DGG (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search for "Selandra Chronicles" turns up absolutely no links whatsoever aside from wikipedia using Google, and Yahoo. Even self-published books can manage to get better search results. This is completely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (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.