Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postal Service (novel)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Service (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

non notable vanity press book [1], see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Terrana (author) ccwaters (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete: It's being read and the review is pending in The Virginian Pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1) pending reviews have no value in WP:BK. 2) That would only be 1 review. 3) According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Terrana (author), the author has a relationship to that newspaper and therefore that review could not be considered an independent source. 4) Are you Dpt2000? ccwaters (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, that comment was made by myself before I had logged in. It was not my intention to make it appear to have multiple votes to not delete. I was rushing to comment as I did not know how quickily the entry would be deleted. Once logged in I did not want to delete a previous entry. My apologies. Dpt2000 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete: I think it is premature to delete this article. The book was just published and is pending several reviews that will add to its notability. Dpt2000 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that the novel was just published (October 9, just a month ago), I believe we have it backward, here. We write the article when the subject is notable, not in anticipation of the subject becoming notable. If the novel takes off, picks up a professional publisher, and gets some media attention, then an article might be in order - but we're not there yet, so this article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:BK requirements at this time. However, with future reviews, the article can return later. Warrah (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the last few years here, I think there's been one vanity press book that actually turned out to be notable. Just one. Typically a notable fictional work will have reviews by the first month if it is every going to have them. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Harsh, but honest. I suppose that can be called motivation to the author.

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.