Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All for the Game (Series)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All for the Game (Series)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a self-published novel series by an author who does not have a biographical article, and not reliably sourced as passing WP:NBOOKS. Two of the three citations here are to the books' directory entries on WorldCat, which are not notability-supporting sources -- and while the other citation is to a real media outlet, that's not enough all by itself. It takes considerably more than just one source to get a topic over WP:GNG, if it's not verifying a hard notability claim like winning a notable literary award -- but the source quantifies the books' "success" in terms of popularity on Smashwords and an Amazon genre chart and GoodReads, rather than a genuinely notability-making bestseller list like The New York Times. And furthermore, this article as written consists almost entirely of in-universe plot detail, rather than any real evidence of real-world context or critical analysis. All of which means that nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the series from having to have much, much more coverage in real media sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notabiilty per GNG or any criteria of NBOOK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "an author who does not have a biographical article", not really relevant to whether an author's books are notable, actually i would suggest that WP:NBOOK is easier to achieve (2 or more reviews than WP:AUTHOR (significant/well known books that have been reviewed), so there are numerous wikiarticles on books without author articles (yours truly has created quite a few :)) that said, i am not saying that this series is notable, btw Bearcat luv ya work. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I'm not saying that the author having a biographical article is necessarily a notability criterion that books have to pass per se — that said, the artist having a biographical article is a core condition that an album has to meet to be notable, and I'm not clear on why we should treat books differently than albums in that regard, but I digress. If the book's article isn't making any notability claims at all, however, then the presence or absence of a biographical article about the author is a useful metric by which to gauge the prospect of the book's salvageability. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for explanation, and agree that it is a useful indicator.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two of the three references in the article are the books themselves. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi everyone. Thanks for your input so far. I am Altinky and this page is my work. If you check out my userpage you'll see that I am a student, and this page is part of an assessment getting a notable article on Wikipedia mainspace. I think I might have jumped the gun a little and moved it to mainspace instead of draft. I do have a significant number of book reviews that satisfy the WP:NBOOK criteria, some of which I have now added to the page and will continue to add as I work on it. Bearcat and others, I'd love your input if there is anything else that would help keep this page up as I think it is sufficiently notable and verifiable. Thanks heaps!--Altinky (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (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.