Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla (novel)
Reviews on Amazon and Goodreads are not usable to show notability, as they're considered to be |self-published sources. Anyone can write one and while I'm not saying that Bach has done this, there have been authors who have had fake reviews posted to sway the ratings in one direction or another. http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/ Robert Stanek is notorious for having done this on Amazon in the past. As far as the Sci-Fi Fantasy Network goes, that wouldn't be usable because the site doesn't have anything posted about their editorial process or really anything about them in general. As far as I can tell, this site appears to have launched within the last year and hasn't gained any sort of coverage that would have them be considered a reliable source despite not having verifiable editorial oversight. It does look impressive, like it could eventually be considered one, but we have to judge reliability based in the here and now, just like we have to judge notability in the here and now. In any case, a search didn't bring up anything other than blog posts, primary sources, and other places that Wikipedia would consider usable. I wish the author well, but right now this book just isn't notable enough to pass NBOOK. I also have to note that the page is borderline  in some places, as it's taken quite liberally from http://www.amazon.com/Valhalla-Ari-Bach/dp/1627987185 the official book jacket. This is just your run of the mill non-notable indie book. Don't take this the wrong way - some of my good friends are struggling indie authors, but the thing is that it's incredibly difficult for indie and self-published authors to gain coverage. For every Hugh Howey there are thousands who never get that big break, but the thing is that without coverage in RS to assert notability there's just nothing that can be done
— User:Tokyogirl79, 04:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SPS||WP:COPYVIO (Wikipedia:Verifiability)