Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The MonsterGrrls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The MonsterGrrls

This looks like an ad. It's a self-published book. However, it's got about 1,000 Google hits. At what point does a self-published book become notable? Rklawton 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This is not the place to decide notability of self-published books. Nominations should be clear to the nominee at least. Ansell 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point! Self-published fiction seems like it could fall outside the intent behind the prohibition of self-published works. That is, self-publishing is a legitimate route to notability in the realm of fiction (as opposed to astrophysics). I've just left the author a note regarding ways to demonstrate the book's notability. All in all, I should have used the "prod" tag instead of an AfD nomination. My bad. Rklawton 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How can the article be changed to remain in Wikipedia? Please contact me at my talk page with information. Constant Reader 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 08:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Only 17 unomitted Google hits, and the top hits are for cafepress and blogspot. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 09:09Z
  • Delete, non-notable book. --Coredesat 09:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Certainly looks interesting, and there's definitely a market for it, though it hasn't seemed to find that market yet considering the hit count on the official site is around 500 and the book is only available from CafePress (at a jaw-dropping $21.00!!!). Like I said though, it does look like a potentially good and popular book, and I hope the author sticks with it enough to make it into the planned series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not by a major author, no authoritive reviews to be seen. Not a notable book - Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Re how this entry can remain in Wikipedia: It has to attract sufficient outside attention (reviews, interviews with the authors, news reports, etc.) that someone who has never heard of the book before can write a balanced article on it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 25 June 2006 (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.