Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kine

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any sources for author or books thus seems to fail WP:AUTHOR The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A first time author who got some good reviews. Maybe later but his notability is pretty limited: I couldn't get the reviews to show up directly in Google. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. None of the references used are reliable, including a blog and goodreads.com, which has user-generated content. I looked for something in a reliable publication, but to no avail. Valfontis (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nor could I find any references, even to the claimed review. The book is in exactly 1 library, a/c worldcat. I was not able to identify the NYT

references alluded to. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we have NEVER used the Internet. Send us an email, if you would like to see our catalog. Still, I can not think of why people have found it necessary to make SLANDEROUS accusations about a small publishing house, or the authors we represent. Yes, our initial entry could have used a little work, but we have never used Wikepedia prior to this entry. As for the unfounded and mean-spirited accusations posted here, the book was mentioned in the printed issue of The NYT Sunday review. A total of eight words were devoted to the book, yet it attracted enough attention for us to do a second printing of 2,000 books. Please just delete the page if it is that bothersome to you. Slander and unfounded quips are unnecessary. Jaimecooper (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Jaime Cooper SHP[reply]

Please show where there is slander. Also where any comment here is unfounded. If you do, it might provide us with evidence that could change our minds. Yes, we can change. On the other hand, if you just want webspace for answering people's queries, why not use LinkedIn, which has a (rather brief) piece on Paul Roades already? (If it's not LinkedIn, it's AboutUs. Both do the same sort of job and are free, I think.) BTW I have nothing against small publishers per se - I have worked with them, but those haven't gone for Wikipedia 'status'. Peridon (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we here at smallhand press can answer any questions, and verify any references. contact us at: smallhandpress@gmail.com. we want the article up, for the reason that we receive too many letters asking the questions about the author, which we answered on this wiki page. also, the author turns down every interview offered, and so this is really the only form of information eluding to his personal life that he has approved. Thank you, Paul Roades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecooper (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So put up your own website and post an author biography. Don't expect us to do your work. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The greatest work of fiction described in this article is the notion that this book was ever reviewed by the New York Times. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The "debut" novel is his only novel. Hardly anything for him to be "best known by". Further, the only people supporting this article are people with connections to the author, and possibly sockpuppets or meatpuppets to boot. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the user creating this article and the user currently supporting it are under investigation for sockpuppetry here. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You guys can go ahead and delete the page. We never intended to cause any inconvenience. We don't do much on the Internet, so perhaps we stepped on toes, unintentionally. Sorry for the trouble, Jaimecooper (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Jaime Cooper, Smallhand Press[reply]
Delete It's a bit hard to get a 'cult following' in a maximum time of just under two years (assuming January 2009 as the issue date) - especially with "less than 5,000 copies being released". How many less? Two, two hundred, two thousand? A small cult following, maybe, but hardly enough to be notable. It's got to be less than 5,000 anyway... Oddly, I can't seem to find much else that's been published by Smallhand. Even when researching them with a '-kine' in the box, all I find is this one book. There is an email address at gmail, and I found "smallhandpress. net" (sic) which disn't work even with the space removed. "We don't do much on the Internet" - looks like they don't. A reclusive author and a reclusive publisher, too? Peridon (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2010 (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.