- 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. bd2412 T 12:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hearts Beneath The Mountain
- Hearts Beneath The Mountain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on e-book was written by a new user whose username is identical to author's name. The e-book has made no bestseller lists, has not received any substantial reviews, and has not won any awards. Chetsford ( talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-published. Not sure why we can't make A9 apply to books. BTW I already tagged the author's article for speedy deletion: the mere fact of having self-published a book is no claim to importance. Drmies ( talk) 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as very clearly not notable. Almost no web footprint at all. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity COI article of no notability. Softlavender ( talk) 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, absolutely nil reviews from reliable sources found. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity piece that fails to meet WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY criteria. DaveApter ( talk) 15:56, 18 September 2017 (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.
- 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. bd2412 T 12:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hearts Beneath The Mountain
- Hearts Beneath The Mountain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on e-book was written by a new user whose username is identical to author's name. The e-book has made no bestseller lists, has not received any substantial reviews, and has not won any awards. Chetsford ( talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-published. Not sure why we can't make A9 apply to books. BTW I already tagged the author's article for speedy deletion: the mere fact of having self-published a book is no claim to importance. Drmies ( talk) 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as very clearly not notable. Almost no web footprint at all. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity COI article of no notability. Softlavender ( talk) 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, absolutely nil reviews from reliable sources found. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity piece that fails to meet WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY criteria. DaveApter ( talk) 15:56, 18 September 2017 (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.