Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasing Eliot Ness

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[Chasing Eliot Ness]]=

:{{la|Chasing Eliot Ness}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasing Eliot Ness}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Chasing Eliot Ness}})

Contested Prod. Non-notable book. Exactly 2 GHits, both to sales sites for the book, no GNews/Books/Scholar hits. Creator appears to be book author, failing COI. Creator states that talks with literary agent are in progress, failing crystal. No reviews of the book at any location I can find. GregJackP (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The book has just recently been released. I did do a self publish because I wanted to see something in print right away and give it to a friend who is very ill. However, I sent it to an agent and it is being considered. I know you want "real" fiction in Wiki, but just what is real fiction? Why only some authors? You encourage anyone to contribute to your site.

I worked for quite some time on this book and wanted to retain my rights and see how well it sold before going to an agent. The book is selling well on Barnes & Noble and Amazon. It may not be a book by James Patterson, but it is a legitimate book. I see no harm in leaving this page on here, any more than I would see harm in having any other book on Wikipedia that has been published, regardless of who the publisher is.

I realize Wikipedia has its standards, but I think the article is well written and discusses a book that is available to the public through large booksellers. I haven't had the chance to get reviews for the book yet.

Wikipedia encourages contributions by writers. It encourages people to write. I use the site all the time to get information. I created the page because I like Wikipedia. I don't see the harm in having this page on the site. I beg for reconsideration, or at least give it some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanovel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does not meet notability standards for books. Author can always recreate the page, if and when it becomes subject of multiple independent reviews in reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I still ask for reconsideration. There is an article due out about the book in my newspaper next week. It was just released a week ago. I haven't received any reviews yet but have sent it out. I don't have any sales information about the book on the site so this isn't a sales page. Please reconsider deleting the page. One "reliable" book reviewer asked for money to review the book. I'm not marketing the book through this page at all, just giving information. Again, I beg for reconsideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanovel (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - print-on-demand book, essentially self-published. No indications of notability, as well as the WP:COI issues. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or a possible G11, because based on what the author says above, the only purpose of this article is to promote the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete it if it is violating your terms. I only wanted to give people an overview of the book. It is not linked to Amazon or any of the other stores carrying it - I didn't want it to come across as a sales page and actually hinders sales because it comes up first on Google whereas some reviews are starting to come out (by others that actually link to the pages where it is selling). This is not promoting my book, but merely giving an overview of the book. I am through begging anyone for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanovel (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Michelleanovel, please do not take this personally, I'm assuming that you are acting in good faith. It's just that you have a clear conflict of interest, and the book does not (yet) reach the standard of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

: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.