Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.R. Turock

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 both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.R. Turock

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

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

WP:BLP of an entirely self-published e-book writer and a separate article about one of her self-published book series, with no substantive or properly sourced indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. As written, these just assert that the writer and the books exist, and are sourced exclusively to her own self-published website and a profile on Smashwords. Writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their own primary source profiles verify that they exist, nor are books automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- either a writer or a book has to be the subject of reliable source coverage, verifying an actual claim of notability, to qualify for an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. I see no evidence that either the self-published author nor the self-published book series are notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I couldn't find evidence to show that either are notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they don't meet WP:GNG, no reviews, awards or anything else found that may lead to notability (which is a pity as the fox series pictures look cute:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (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.