Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Branded Fools

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. per WP:SNOW. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Branded Fools

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

Deleted prod for non-notable novel by non-notable author. According to the talk page the novel is not even in print yet. —teb728 t c 21:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent references exist, impossible to meet Wikipedia verification policy.-Citing (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion by SPA. —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clear delete, no real reason to let it sit around all week, WP:SNOW or just speedy as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be able to become a snow close. This is an as of yet unreleased novel and I can't find anything on the Internet to show that it meets notability guidelines or will meet them when it comes out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (author already removed a CSD without addressing issues). Creator has a Conflict of Interest. Possible promotion for a book. Fails to meet criteria at WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2012 (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.