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 redirect to Craig_Lancaster#Novels. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter[edit]

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Kindle First Selection is not a notable accomplishment. Jbh (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still under construction. Withdraw this nomination until it is actually written.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my reply to you on my talk page [1]. Acording to my WP:BEFORE the book is self published bu Amazon and the only coverage I could find was in blogs, Facebook and sales material. I will withdraw my nomination if you show some coverage that meets WP:NBOOK. Jbh (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request AGAIN you withdraw this nomination until I have actually written this article, you're just being obnoxious and rude by doing this. You obviously do not understand the use of templates, or more likely you missed it, since I had unwisely placed it at the bottom of the page, and you aren't prepared to admit that.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia discussing this with you, I have redirected this page to Craig Lancaster, and move the article to an incubator. I would have preferred to spend the time writing actually writing this article as the template suggested, but you've wasted enough of it on this already.

Suggest again you withdraw your badly timed nomination.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... As I noted on my talk page I must revert that. Just as you may not remove the AfD template (Which you did twice) you may not blank the page. I have told you now three times that if you can show the article passes WP:NBOOK, which you should have been able to do before you even started writing the article, I would withdraw the nomination. You have done everything but do this. Jbh (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK... stepping in here for a moment. The book does not pass notability guidelines and Jbh is correct in that MacRùsgail should have made sure that the book passes NBOOK before creating it as a live article. However MacRùsgail is also correct in that it's also considered impolite to nominate an article for deletion only minutes after it's been created. The best course of action here would have been to wait for MacRùsgail to finish. The thing about searching for coverage for books is that sometimes it's easy to miss coverage. I've saved more than a few books from deletion because I was able to dig up sources that others could not. Granted this book is not one of those examples, but it's still considered polite to wait for an editor to finish editing an article that they are still actively working on. Sometimes it's OK to do this if it's an article that's incredibly promotional and/or has absolutely zero assertion of notability, but in this case the article wasn't promotional and there were two things that would assert some sort of notability- the author's notability and that it was one of four books chosen for the Kindle First program. Neither of these are things that would make the book notable enough to pass notability guidelines, but it does give off the impression that there may be sources out there somewhere. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if it's a brand spanking new article that is actively being edited and has something about it that suggests that sources might possibly exist, don't nominate it immediately- wait at least a day to see if the article creator provides proof of notability. Now all that said, I don't think that the best course of action here was to nominate this for deletion. I think that it would have been better to just redirect this to the author's page since he looks to pass notability guidelines and leaving an article history behind will give us something to work with if the book passes notability guidelines in the future. It is possible that an author's work will gain enough coverage over time to pass notability guidelines- I've seen it happen multiple times. Now I'm going to propose that this article redirect with history to the author's article and if neither side has an issue with this, I'll close this AfD early. I don't see this ending any other way, really, and closing it early as a redirect would still mean that MacRùsgail would probably still have to go through deletion review if he wanted to re-create the article later on down the line if/when more sources become available. Jbh, technically you are right in that the book does not pass notability guidelines and to be honest, it doesn't look like it will pass anytime soon. I don't want to discourage you from trying to get rid of problem articles, but I would recommend that you try to work more with other editors in trying to find a solution before bringing something to AfD. It's entirely possible that MacRùsgail would have agreed to redirect the article if you'd approached him about this. Maybe he would have protested, but the thing here is that you didn't try to talk things out beforehand. You don't have to do this every time you want to nominate an article for deletion- if you see that nobody has edited it in the last 10+ hours then go for it- but if you see that someone edited the page only minutes before, it's just common courtesy to try to talk things out first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Thank you for stepping in here. I did not see the {{under construction}} template when I first nominated this (It was at the bottom of the page) No real excuse but when MacRusgail objected I asked him to just show how it passed NBOOKS, assuming he would have that information, and I would withdraw the nomination. Simple, clean and the issue would be closed in two edits. I made this offer three times and all I got was bluster and being called a Smart alec (Complete with blue link) [2] If I had noticed the link at first I likely would have waited a couple of days to see where the article went but once it was nominated all I could do is offer a speedy keep.

Once MacRusgail started removing the AfD tag on the article and calling me names I assumed he was just some PR editor not someone with 70,000+ edits and ten years of experience on Wikipedia so my desire to work with him took a bit of a nose dive after that. I guess I could have apologized for the AfD at the outset but it was a good faith nomination with a WP:BEFORE so I figured an offer to withdraw and an apology if my BEFORE was bad was a reasonable way to approach the situation. Oh yeah... no objection to the speedy close and thank you for taking the time to go over things here. I guess this article just tripped my spam trigger so I did not engage the author as I should have. I will endeavour to do better in the future. Jbh (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any evidence this book is notable. The provided reference (on wired.co.uk) which says the article was a "selection" for a Kindle marketing campaign is not notable. This selection is the only mention of the book made by the Wired article, and does not demonstrate notability. Unless reputable, non-trivial references can be found, this title doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2015 (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.