355:: I'm going to try to wade through the article and do some cleanup, as there's some clear puffery going on here. The first case in point: the Goodread awards are ones where anyone can nominate a book as long as it was first published in 2013. I don't know if the authors can submit their own works to this, but I do know that it's easy to create multiple accounts to vote and nominate things. Not that I'm saying the author did this, just that because this is one of those awards that's so easy to get nominated for and falsify votes, we don't count this towards notability unless you win the final top award of best in your category or best for the year. The Amazon sales also don't count towards notability because sales don't equal to notability. It can make it more easy to get coverage, but it doesn't guarantee it. Plus once you get into specific categories on any sale site, it's easy to say you're the top of something in any one specific category.
426:
If you go the self-published route, you have to do all your own advertising (apart from the company's site). I don't blame him for trying here, and wish him luck (very much needed in the self-pub world...), but we're not here for promotion. And this is undoubtedly promo. As to the book, 82,000 words
402:
as spam. I've just reverted everything and tagged it as spam. This is pretty much the epitome of someone trying to spam for themselves on
Knowledge using sources that are so unreliable that using them actually made my decision to speedy it as a whole. The award nominations are pretty much a joke, as
208:
The references cited are, for the most part, listings of where the book is sold. Otherwise there are self-published sources (author's blog), blog postings by other authors that are merely a description of the book (probably as a form of mutual promotion), tweets by the author, and reviews from web
427:
is a reasonable length, but I can't see how he rewrote it in five days. Five agents isn't a great number, either, for rejections. Look how many JKR had before
Bloomsbury accepted Harry Potter. 'Sales' figures will undoubtedly be skewed by five days free download.
403:
anyone can nominate anything at
Goodreads and the Bath Awards are ones where even the author can nominate themselves. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain that the Goodreads awards are the same thing. You might get notability if you won, but the author
166:
338:-- This looks like an ADVERT by the author, who is trying to promote his book by putting his working synopsis in WP. If this belongs anywhere, it should be on the author's own website. Possibly redirect to author, if he survives AFD.
160:
92:
87:
96:
262:
It's self-published per Amazon (through createspace). No sources of note. Nothing looks even as if it would be vaguely notable even with that list of references that appear to be a misfiring
79:
295:
126:
119:
315:
181:
148:
453:
436:
418:
390:
366:
347:
327:
307:
286:
257:
239:
61:
142:
138:
83:
188:
379:
is an awards contest where anyone can submit and besides that, isn't an award that would give notability even if the book won it.
75:
67:
17:
154:
253:
472:
40:
343:
282:
231:
468:
411:
383:
359:
271:
249:
57:
36:
197:
This article is very thorough and well written but... it doesn't establish notability of the book per
174:
339:
278:
216:
432:
323:
303:
263:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
467:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
408:
380:
356:
53:
202:
449:
198:
428:
319:
299:
113:
212:
Google search results in much of the same, and a lot of social media postings.
445:
376:
205:. Being nominated for an award is not enough to confer notability.
461:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
109:
105:
101:
173:
248:. Amazon customer reviews do not confer notability.
296:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
475:). No further edits should be made to this page.
316:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
407:win. This is pretty much the epitome of spam.
187:
8:
314:Note: This debate has been included in the
294:Note: This debate has been included in the
313:
293:
76:Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned
68:Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
274:page history also up at AfD,
62:00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
454:14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
437:13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
419:04:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
391:04:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
367:04:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
348:21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
328:21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
308:21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
287:19:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
258:17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
240:23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
492:
464:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
444:per everyone else.
375:Another note: the
272:Gavin Hetherington
48:The result was
377:Bath Novel Awards
330:
310:
483:
466:
415:
387:
363:
270:- and given the
250:NinjaRobotPirate
235:
228:
221:
215:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
491:
490:
486:
485:
484:
482:
481:
480:
479:
473:deletion review
462:
413:
385:
361:
238:
233:
222:
217:
213:
209:site visitors.
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
489:
487:
478:
477:
457:
456:
439:
421:
396:
395:
394:
393:
370:
369:
350:
332:
331:
311:
290:
289:
260:
230:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
488:
476:
474:
470:
465:
459:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
438:
434:
430:
425:
422:
420:
417:
416:
410:
406:
401:
400:Speedy delete
398:
397:
392:
389:
388:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
368:
365:
364:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
340:Peterkingiron
337:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
279:Neonchameleon
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
259:
255:
251:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
236:
229:
227:
226:
220:
210:
206:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
463:
460:
441:
423:
412:
404:
399:
384:
360:
352:
335:
275:
267:
245:
232:
224:
223:
218:
211:
207:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
409:Tokyogirl79
381:Tokyogirl79
357:Tokyogirl79
161:free images
54:Mark Arsten
264:wp:BOMBARD
469:talk page
320:• Gene93k
300:• Gene93k
37:talk page
471:or in a
225:spinster
203:WP:NBOOK
120:View log
39:or in a
429:Peridon
414:(｡◕‿◕｡)
386:(｡◕‿◕｡)
362:(｡◕‿◕｡)
353:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
442:Delete
424:Delete
405:didn't
336:Delete
268:Delete
246:Delete
199:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
219:disco
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
450:talk
433:talk
344:talk
324:talk
304:talk
283:talk
276:Salt
254:talk
234:talk
201:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
446:Deb
266:.
214:...
189:TWL
118:– (
452:)
435:)
346:)
326:)
318:.
306:)
298:.
285:)
256:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
448:(
431:(
342:(
322:(
302:(
281:(
252:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.