Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Creature's Cookbook

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 speedy delete under criterion G7. Any editor attempting to recreate the page would be well advised to make sure that the article is based on secondary sources well removed from the editor, publisher, and other related parties. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Creature's Cookbook

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources, does not meet any criteria of WP:BKCRIT. I can't find anything other than press releases online. McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist and have been added to. The article has 4 references. It should not be deleted based upon this criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources (the book's website, the publisher's Facebook page, a press release). You can click the WP:GNG link to find out about secondary sources - all Wikipedia articles require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source has been added. a tertiary website covering the release of the book. When discussing a press release written by someone, the only source that exists is the press release in question. There are no secondary sources for the "plot" of the book, and that is in the book itself. There are no secondary sources for publishing data except that released by the publisher. So all secondary sources that can be added have been added.--Kristina Meister (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blog entry posted by the author's agent is not "independent of the subject". Typical sources for a book article are defined as: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews" and explicitly not "media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".

If Creature's Cookbook has not yet received any mainstream reviews or other press coverage, it is too early for it to have an article in Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while looking for sources to improve the article, I found a couple of sites identifying Kristina Meister as the author of this book ("Kristina Meister writing as the monster Simon Alkenmayer"). The article (and the now-deleted Simon Alkenmayer article) were previously claiming Alkenmayer to be the author and implying that he was a real person. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of the project. The citation that was added was added in error. But if you would like to continue editing the entry with a vendetta and bad information, we would all just rather you remove the article. But when I attempted to delete, you put it back up. So do as you please and delete the entry. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence that Simon Alkenmayer existed (just some jokey press releases describing him as a real-life "immortal monster who must eat humans to survive" who has a publishing deal), and two sources describing horror writer Kristina Meister as the author writing under a pseudonym. As the only other editor to have worked on this article, I've no objection to a speedy delete under WP:G7. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original author has requested deletion on the grounds that the article was based on mistaken information. Peridon (talk) 19:01, 11 July 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.