Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Year’s Work at the Zombie Research Center

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Year’s Work at the Zombie Research Center[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (books), being sourced only to self-published sources, an except, and book directories. Better sources would change my mind. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this book meets notability guidelines at this point in time, much to my dismay. I found a brief mention here, but nothing really that would prove notability per NBOOK. This just isn't notable at this point in time and it's just a little early for an entry, despite the book being released. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Book appears to be notable. Just give it some time for more places to review it. As it stands it seems to me it has the minimum references for it to be notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything out there- all that we have on the page are three primary sources. The book was published through Indiana University Press and one of the authors is an employee of that university, so anything published by IU will be considered a primary source. It's in their best interests to promote something that represents themselves. The PopMatters article is something written by both of the authors, so it is also a primary source and cannot show notability. The book does seem to exist (WP:ITEXISTS), but existing is not notability and we cannot keep an article unless it shows notability in the here and now. It is entirely possible that the book may be reviewed by one of the various outlets, but it's also entirely possible that it won't receive coverage since it's been out for about 3-4 months and hasn't received any true notice from anyone that isn't involved with the work to some degree. I think that it's just too soon for this book to have an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- its existence can be verified, but that's about all. There are no sources, in the article or elsewhere that I can find, that would show that it meets our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 16:30, 27 December 2014 (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.