Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pilot (Book)

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 ^Happy ^Holidays 03:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot (Book)

This is a self-published novel by a young author. I originally prodded this, but a reliable source [1] (published, oddly, on the same day that I prodded the article) has been added. I don't think that a single local newspaper article is enough for this novel to meet the notability guideline for books. The article's edit history also shows that there is conflict of interest. Bláthnaid ^talk 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid that despite the reliable source, the kid's been duped. Outskirts Press is a self-publishing outfit. If memory serves me correct, they don't send acceptance letters, but if they do, it means preciously little, because they'd accept anything as long as the writer coughs up the dough in advance (rather than paying them first which is the professional way of working in publishing). There's even multiple cheaper options. If he chose Outskirts himself, I pity him for wasting money he could've spent on publishing 2-3 other books. (Disclosure: Former Lulu.com support volunteer, and amateur writer myself) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator, please strike the comment about about COI because it's not a valid reason for deletion.

On its own, COI isn't a reason for deletion. I mentioned COI here because I think that COI is one of the things that shows that this book isn't notable and that the article was created for promotional reasons--if the book truly was notable enough for Wikipedia, uninterested editors would have created and edited the article. Bláthnaid ^talk 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree for deletion, due to the lack of notability. Sharpbrood (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2008 (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.