Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the dog's mouth
- 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the dog's mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published book (presumably not really by the dog...) with no references, and not on release until April 21st. Enough there to avoid CSD for content or context, in my opinion, but no notability or significance shown. Peridon (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the 'publisher' is Fastpencil Wavecrest. There is another Wavecrest in publishing, which appears to be Dr. Gerald Aronoff's personal imprint, marketing only his books on pain relief. Fastpencil are in the same line as Lulu and AuthorHouse. Peridon (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteInsufficient coverage to make the book notable for now.JoelWhy (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not meet WP:Notability (books). That guideline states specifically that "Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged", but even when published it is unlikely that this will meet WP:BK#Criteria any time soon. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant content on page. Not notable per above comments. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's just nothing to show that this is notable in the here and now. It's possible that it might eventually gain notability when it is published, but we can't keep something around because it might eventually become notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not even a claim of importance. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (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.