Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/169 (book)


 * 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. A clear consensus that this novel does not reach notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

169 (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This novel fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as unfortunately could only find a library blog as a source, doesn't pass WP:GNG unless someone finds some RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't really find anything to suggest that this book is notable. It's possible that sourcing might exist in other languages, but I found very little to suggest that this is the case. I wish the author well and it's impressive that he wrote this at such a young age since that requires a lot of dedication, but the book just doesn't pass NBOOK at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:MihaiCucu28. The article makes unreferenced claims to positive response from teachers, friends and readers; I am seeing nothing better than a Blog entry about the book launch. Fails WP:NBOOK and broader WP:GNG notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that there is also a Draft:169(book) which has been being declined at AfC. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find anything useable, just some book selling/publicity sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to me to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. In any case, as stated above, it fails notability standards for books and GNG. Also, hopefully "Draft169 (book)" doesn't make it out of AFC - more promotion anyone? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.