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. ansh 666 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken online[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD. Non-notable book: no evidence of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The reviews added are self-published blogs. User reviews on Amazon.com are similarly user generated. While no doubt this book has received some attention from fans, it is WP:TOOSOON for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published with no WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet GNG or WP:NBOOK in that reviews are not significant enough. Search at Locusmag was unavailing. Worldcat not availing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (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.