- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Squish The Fish (Book)
- Squish The Fish (Book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this meets the criteria for sufficiently notable books. I'm unable to find reliable third-party coverage of the novel itself and I believe the book is self-published since I can't find any trace of another book published by "Bottoms Up Publishing". Pichpich ( talk) 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I could not locate anything to satisfy the WP:NBOOK criteria. Gongshow talk 17:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Per the author's Linkedin page it's as good as self-published given that he works at the publishing company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book would pass NBOOK either. The book is listed at CreateSpace, so it's definitely self-published. Being self-published doesn't mean that a book can't be notable, but it does make it extremely unlikely since there are thousands upon thousands of self-pub'd books and very few outlets that can or would review them that would also be seen as a RS on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Not even close to being notable. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Can't really put it any better than what's already been said. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 21 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Squish The Fish (Book)
- Squish The Fish (Book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this meets the criteria for sufficiently notable books. I'm unable to find reliable third-party coverage of the novel itself and I believe the book is self-published since I can't find any trace of another book published by "Bottoms Up Publishing". Pichpich ( talk) 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I could not locate anything to satisfy the WP:NBOOK criteria. Gongshow talk 17:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Per the author's Linkedin page it's as good as self-published given that he works at the publishing company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book would pass NBOOK either. The book is listed at CreateSpace, so it's definitely self-published. Being self-published doesn't mean that a book can't be notable, but it does make it extremely unlikely since there are thousands upon thousands of self-pub'd books and very few outlets that can or would review them that would also be seen as a RS on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Not even close to being notable. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Can't really put it any better than what's already been said. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 21 May 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.