Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moondance of Stonewylde

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 Kit Berry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moondance of Stonewylde

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

Exists, but I can't find sufficient non-trivial, non-local RS coverage. Zero refs in the article. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a self-published series that the author puts out through a publishing company that she also runs. (For proof, see here:[1]) There are a handful of reviews by non-notable sites and blogs, but nothing that would show notability. That the original editor only uploaded information about the books and the author makes me wonder if this was yet another example of an author coming on to create their own entry on Wikipedia. I'm going to be nominating Stonewylde for deletion shortly, as it is another entry added by this editor and is equally non-notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. The page for the fictional town is now up for deletion as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional Additional. Apparently the books are being released by Orion Publishing, however my assertion of non-notablity for the books still holds as there's no coverage in reliable sources that focuses on the books. If the books do gain this coverage I have no problem with the articles being re-created.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
Additional X3 There's some talk on the AfD on Stonewylde that the author might meet notability guidelines, so there's the potential that an article will be created on her if a particular source is considered reliable enough. If so, then my vote will change to a redirect to her page. Leaving this comment here for anyone that might come across this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to redirect to Kit Berry. There's been a general agreement on the AfD on the Stonewylde article that there's probably enough sources to warrant creating an article about the author, which has since been recreated. I'd like to change my vote to redirecting to the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to Kit Berry Hasteur (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2012 (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.