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. The consensus is that, because the book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the book itself, and because the book does not meet any of the additional criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books), the book is not notable for a standalone Wikipedia article at this time. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cruel Streets Revisited (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)

Non-notable book; self-published vanity press. A WP:BEFORE reveals the only mention at Amazon shopfront. No independent reviews. Not the subject of others' writings. No literary awards, major or otherwise. Author (John F. Wake) is non-notable in his own right. Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:GNG. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found basically nothing. TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wordcatcher Publishing is NOT a vanity publisher. As the Owner I can categorically state that the author paid us nothing to have the book published, and we will only get a return on book sales. It is a well-researched book, with extensive copyright attributions and thorough research on Cardiff history using reputable archives and with the assistance of Cardiff Library Service. David Norrington, Owner, Wordcatcher Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.86.54 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fair enough; I withdraw my poorly-chosen choice of words. Apologies for that. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book has received the type of coverage in independent, reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to show notability per WP:NBOOK. This is actually pretty par for the course with self-published works, as there are always more of those then there are RS outlets that would be able and willing to cover them. This book just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find any reviews from reliable sources, maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK.Can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:50, 7 March 2017 (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.