Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Knights

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. Wizardman 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Knights[edit]

No evidence of notability for this book; no independent, reliable sources are apparent, book is published by a Vanity press -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update In addition to the local interest TV spot mentioned below,

Lexington Herald author profile
and aparently "... while he was a lifeguard in 2005 to finally write down a story he had been mulling over in his head for a long time. He said some of the ideas for "Virtual Knights" came from his elementary school days and followed a story line he and others played on the school playground. Reutlinger said he wrote ..." 10/29/07, 1106925 bytes something in the Hastings Tribune

However, even with these sources, the subject of the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books).-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite it being a self-published book, there is an article about the teenage author here on 9news.com. 9news says the book sold just 500 copies, I can't find any other reliable sources, and it looks to me like it was a local-interest news story, so I think the article should be deleted. Bláthnaid ^talk 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 15:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no problem with self-published if other notability issues exist. However, I can find no third party reviews, Open Worldcat doesn't indicate a single library purchasing this work, and its Amazon sales rank is 3,159,691. Author could end up being the next Isaac Asimov, but not yet. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had initially proposed deletion on the grounds that no reliable sources exist, and I stand by that assessment. The book can be confirmed to exist - amazon is sufficient for that - but there aren't any other sources that discuss the notability of the book. So, unfortunately, this article should be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable selfpublished book, local news coverage isn't very significant. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, smacks of self-promotion. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published book which doesn't pass WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:15, 11 August 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.