Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Conflict

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. WjBscribe 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Conflict

Holy Conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Apparently self-published forthcoming book; totally unsourced other than the author's blog, no assertion of notability, violates WP:CRYSTAL. — iridescent 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Booksurge is a publish-on-demand service, publishing a book through there is just not impressive. Brianyoumans 12:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally non-notable.Alberon 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even though such a book is self published. The storyline is impressive and you should giv ehte blog a read before judgement is passed. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and saying that this book is not worthy of being mentioned is like saying apples isn't worth being mentioned in an encyclopedia. All this is still a aspect of human creativity, why not give the poor kid a chance? Syinx 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It doesn't matter if the storyline is 'impressive'. This isn't a judgement on how good or bad we think the book is, it just isn't notable yet. Perhaps if the book starts getting some good reviews (or in fact any reviews) from independent sites then that might change. But as it stands the book does not deserve a page here. His book isn't going to fail or succeed based on a Wiki entry anyway.Alberon 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Still seems to deserve one though Syinx 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Why?Alberon 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep We have got to get away from this crap about self published and it not been worth anything, apart from vanity. Several well know authors have had to self publish their first novels because they couldn't get publishing deals. These days, mostly because of celebrity publishing, like Cooleen Rooney getting a five book deal. Self publishing of pamphlets has been going on for centuries to spread new ideas, like Lutherism. Dickens had to publish his first set of sketches himself. The list goes on. scope_creep 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Dickens and Luther have coverage in independent sources. If they didn't, they'd go, too. — iridescent 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not only is it self-published (which is usually cause to delete right there), it isn't even released yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Do I understand this right? There's a 13 year old who posted Chapter 1 of his newest webnovel, in September 2007, and who is cranking out about 1,500 words at a time on a website. "The twin moons that shone through the crack in the sky made slivers of light illuminate my black sword," is the opening line. Should everyone who self-publishes a book on the internet also get to self-publish an article about it on Wikipedia? It's bad enough that we have articles about TV episodes created by professional writers. As Alberon says, a Wikipedia article isn't going to make or break Jeremy. Mandsford 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability for this WP:CRYSTALballery. Doctorfluffy 19:35, 2 November 2007 (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.