Deletion of DeadThings, A Novel

Comment: Delete as a shameless example of self promotion by a .  Author fails to support article claims of Wikipedia defined |notability.  Note to Suit&Tie, without | verifiable, |independent, |reliable |resources this article will most likely be deleted.  Perhaps focusing on providing references that are not PR based might be a way to silence all our doubts as to the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. I highly suggest you review , ,  , , and . USER:reddogsix|reddogsix
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NOTBOOK||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:IRS||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:IRS||WP:NOTBOOK)

Comment: First off, press releases aren't usable as reliable sources to show notability and I'd like to note that this PR came out only after I pointed out in the article's talk page that nobody had mentioned anything about Whedon or Dark Horse showing interest in the book. I also still have my doubts as to the validity of the claims, as this is a little overly convenient that a press release suddenly pops up out of nowhere. I'll believe it when I actually hear it from Dark Horse and see an article in Spin Magazine rather than a PR that may or may not be from Spin. Even if we ignore whether or not Whedon and Dark Horse are actually involved in a project with this book, the article claims that the book sold 100,000 e-book copies upon release, a total that would easily put it in the bestselling lists of various newspapers and online sites. To date no publishing sites have commented on this book or posted anything that would corroborate with the article's claims. For that matter, there are incredibly few non-merchant or primary sources about this book in general. For a book that supposedly sold more copies than many other mainstream books do in its first 7 months of release, there is a lack of well, EVERYTHING to prove anything beyond the book's existence. Existing is not notability. I'd also like to note that there is a lack of sources for the author as well and the IMDb link goes to someone named Parys Sylver, whose information doesn't seem to match up with anything that has been revealed about Riley on sites such as http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6448611.Reese_Riley Goodreads. Even if it's just a screen name for Reese Riley, none of the roles are really big enough to show that he passes . Now assuming all of the claims in the article are true, which I doubt, we'd still need independent and reliable sources to show notability. Those just don't exist for either the author or the book. As far as hoaxes go, I wasn't saying the book itself was a hoax as much as everything else in the article was, the amount of books sold, the Whedon/Dark Horse deal, everything except for the book existing and the plot synopsis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER)