Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Tech: Mark of the Beast

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God Tech: Mark of the Beast (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)

After an attempt to make the article suitable, no reliable sources can be found. A peer review has confirmed this. Samuel Tarling (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar: Why is this article up for deletion again? I've only made a few updates and most of them are extra links to other pages. User:invisiblesword (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Invisiblesword: The problem is the lack of reliable sources to establish the notability of the book. Has the book received coverage in any respectable newspapers or magazines? All I'm seeing are primary sources, blogs and conspiracy theory websites. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Yes, there are respectable newspaper coverages. I will find them in the next couple of days. Please hold back from deleting for now. User:invisiblesword (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Would you accept a radio interview with East Dunbartonshire Radio? Its a mixcloud link unfortunately.

User:invisiblesword (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's not a great source, but it could offer an argument for notability if combined with other sources. It's certainly not enough on its own. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that this movie is still in production cleared the strenous IMDB clearance process means there is something there, however it was a bit premature to create this article because of the lack of secondary sources. This article could hold validity, therefore I wouldn't delete, but as J milburn said, it definitely needs some more backing to stand beyond an intro period. I added a new page tag as this article is new. I might even suggest the creator moves it into their namespace until more sources are available.Shinerite (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some solid sources are forthcoming. If the subject becomes notable at a later date, the page can easily be recreated. We do not keep articles on the basis of possible future notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I have newspaper sources but I'm waiting to hear back from them for a copy of the appropriate link. I ask that you let me keep the page for a few days while I obtain this information.

User:invisiblesword (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBOOK,WP:NFF not the subject of any significant coverage--Savonneux (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Userfy. Right now there just aren't enough sources out there to show that this book would pass notability guidelines. The thing about films is that they really only count if they receive coverage in independent and reliable sources. A book does not gain automatic notability because a film was made and I can't see where the film has received the necessary coverage. Now if sources can be provided to show that the book is notable then it could possibly be restored at some point in time, but these sources would have to be pretty stellar. To be honest, I'm somewhat doubtful that this will pass notability guidelines or that the sources would really be all that usable since I didn't bring anything up in a search. This doesn't mean that they may not exist, but it's usually not the greatest sign when sources don't come up in a search and one of the biggest claims of notability is that it ranked highly on Amazon (which by the way is not something that would show notability on here). I've removed the merchant sources since those are extremely inappropriate on Wikipedia. The main purpose of Amazon (and other merchants) is to sell you something and putting them on Wikipedia can be seen as an endorsement of the site or the product. The primary source didn't back up the claims of it selling well on Amazon (not that this would be usable towards notability anyway) and it's also sort of a merchant link, so I've removed that as well. IMDb is not usable as a RS for several reasons, one of which is that it's at best a routine database listing. The CFD is not usable for notability purposes for the same reasons. I'm also going to clear out the "see also" section since those are all external links and some of them seem like they're purchase links - which again, is very inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have no problem with this being userfied, but it would have to be approved by the deleting admin (since it seems very likely this will be deleted) or go through WP:DRV before it should be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please don't post "related news". The Wikipedia article shoudl only be about the book/film. It is not a forum or WP:SOAPBOX for you to post related material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 20 August 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.