Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight of the Dead

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. W.marsh 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Dead

Delete as spam for nonnotable vanity press (see AuthorHouse and self-published (Publisher created the article) book DreamGuy 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Self-promoting, and could be seen as an advert. Josh 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction:After reading T-dot's comment, decided I did not have a proper view of the article.. Josh 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reconsidering all given points, I stick to my original recommendation. I had not properly understood the notability guidelines, and now vote with a clearer range of knowledge. Josh 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria: there were reviews (see article), and it has an ISBN (two actually, including a "special edition"). Published by a Vanity Press may be indicative, but not determinative, of non-notability. It is available from Amazon.com[1] and that includes an editorial review ("Christine Filipak, Dark Realms Magazine: Adkins remains absolutely faithful to the zombie genre while offering an exciting new twist of horror and human perserverance."), and presumably there is more at the original review site. But together these still make for a pretty weak keep, as there seems little interest (external notablility) outside of the Zombie genre. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but your comments don't match at all with the criteria listed on [[Wikipedia:Notability. Having an ISBN and being listed on Amazon absolutely DO NOT show any sort of notability. The review criteria specifies that they have to be "multiple, non-trivial" published works separate from the source itself. There is only one cited review and that's from a very small magazine, certainly not multiple and non-trivial. DreamGuy 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the meaning is that any present-day English language publication claiming to be a book must have an ISBN--otherwise it's not even a book; Amazon is I think obsolete altogether, considering they sell home appliances as well. DGG 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after a google search and what not I'm fairly convinced that is notable. Popularity is not always an indicator of notability, however the reviews and the fact it's available on amazon and other notable stores suggests it is notable. Englishrose 23:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is conditional on suitable references been found to back up the claim of notability. Englishrose 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but being available on Amazon is NOT criteria for notability. If you think there are reasons for notability that match the criteria, please state what they are. Do not ignore policy and declare it notable, give reasons. DreamGuy 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those who haven't actually read the notability guidelines, here are important passages:

"A book's listing at online bookstores such as BarnesAndNoble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications." "By the same token, it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article." (The article was created by a new account with the same name as the self-publishing venture who sold the book.) "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. " (A quick click on the ISBN of the book on the article to the Book sources page and then the WorldCat link shows only TWO libraries that have copies, NOT a dozen or more, and it's not at the Library of Congress.) Come on people, this one is pretty obvious. DreamGuy 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is extremely exceptional for a vanity press book to be held N here--I think i remember one & one only in the last six months. The reason is simply that anything that people are at all likely to buy and notice finds a publisher. DGG 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:COI article about a self-published book requires pretty clear evidence of notability, and the reviews that are cited just don't convince me.--Kubigula (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2007 (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.