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. SilkTork *^YES! 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of the night (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

It appears that this book has never been published, and the page author is one of the people listed as the book authors. Prod removed by page author. PRobably shold have been speedied, but with rejected prod, moving on to this. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Question - under which criteria could it have been speedied? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from the mouth of the writer I AM THE WRITER AND THE BOOK IS REAL i didnt go to a big publsing company and done it all from home only 50 copies of the book were made but more is getting printed out as i type any so no you wont find it online because its not published by a big company.

• My name is Bethany and I am the creator of the article. I would just like to say in objection to this deletion request that this book IS a real book, and that the author of the deletion request has no evidence of this. I am also going to state that I am not the author of the book. Someone called Bethany Hawkins is the joint author, but I am not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence (such as a verifiable ISBN number) that the book even exists, let alone that it fulfils the criteria for notable books. Hqb (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that an article about a book needed any ISBN number of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 December 2009

See WP:BK#Threshold standards. Hqb (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The question is not whether the book exists, but whether it is notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia. This book is not yet notable, which at least requires notice by the outside world. Until then, the article is an advertisement, which is not appropriate for this forum. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE There are plenty of articles on books on this website and I don't see why my article is any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Nearly all the articles about books on this site are about books with notability -- published books that third-party sources have written about. In order for this article to stay, proof is needed that (1) the book exists (2) it has been published and (3) it's been written about or discussed in third-party sources (sources not related to the book's publisher or author). These are required, and the burden of proof using verifiable, reliable sources is on the writers of the article -- in other words, I don't have to prove the book isn't notable or that the book doesn't exist, the article's authors and editor need to prove existence and demonstrate notability. IS ther any way that you can help us out here by providing such evidence? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete home published books with no outside coverage are not notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:NOTBOOK, obviously, as vanity press printing. I strongly urge the creator of the article to review the links found at WP:PILLAR to get a handle on how to properly select subjects for article creation and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; that her first edit was to vandalize a user page was a poor beginning.  Ravenswing  09:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: As already stated, this is a discussion, not a vote, and my first edit was not a vandilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Your first edit was this one [1]. On Wikipedia, we generally hold that putting as someone's user page is vandalism.  Ravenswing  21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That was not my first edit.--Thebethseesall (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: As a new user, we understand that you're unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but any user can easily see the entire contribution history of any other user. That was, in point of fact, your first edit.  Ravenswing  04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indented because you cannot !vote twice. --Thinboy00 @949, i.e. 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the book were published, there would be at least one hit on Google for the title + Bethany, or the title + Blayne. Apart from this article, of course. If it is written but not yet published, it would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. If it is published online, no-one will be able to find it at present. If it is not written, it is a hoax. In any of these cases, the only verdict can be 'delete'. It's quite a good plot idea, slightly reminiscent of Groundhog Day and another whose name escapes me, but different enough to succeed. If it is published - other than by a vanity publisher or self-publisher like lulu.com - then let us know who by and when. I doubt that this information can be given. If it is written but not published, then do keep trying to get it in print - even via lulu perhaps. That won't get it on here, but it might then get taken up by a bigger publisher. Peridon (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted without having noticed post from one of the authors above. Doesn't affect my opinion. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the author's own words: "done it all from home only 50 copies of the book were made"; thus, easily fails WP:BK. The fact that there are other articles about books doesn't mean any article is accepted willy-nilly. Best of luck with your work, but at this point the subject doesn't meet notability standards. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was a page on Bethany Hawkins, about the author of this book, in fact. So no, that was not my first edit.--Thebethseesall (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. Clearly someone having an ego trip. Not even close to reaching WP:BK. --A1octopus (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Bethany mainly (and others please note) Please do not delete posts on this page. If you have an issue over what someone says, you may take it up in the relevant place. If you want to cancel a comment of your own, use strikethrough. As to your first edit, if the Bethany Hawkins article was deleted before the alleged incident referred to above, your edit there would disappear from sight in your contribs list, so the edit referred to here would look like your first edit. It may be that someone owes you an apology. It may be the other way round. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, good point ... since I'm not an admin, I don't see edits to deleted pages. I'm perfectly happy to correct myself to say that Thebethseesall's earliest surviving edit was to vandalize a user page.  Ravenswing  21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that. Bethany, shake hands? Peridon (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure --Thebethseesall (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Peridon (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, not even a proper Wikipedia article, no isbn or anything. Jameswa21 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2010 (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.