Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander's Choice


 * 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. L Faraone  00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexander's Choice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently not notable. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this notability outside of the one (gossip-ish) Daily Mail article. Author is otherwise unpublished (possibly a pseudonym). Publisher is the non-notable "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" (apparently vanity press). Sum mer PhD (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete If we could find more than Daily Mail, then maybe, but we'd need a bit more to establish this as notable.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. From what I can find, the only place that has actually reported on this book is the Daily Mail, which is far from a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. Their tabloid nature on other things makes it unusable even for the other things such as book commentary. I don't particularly have anything against it being userfied, but the article slightly smacks of WP:PUFFERY when you consider that portions of it were/are written like it was WP:OR by the original editor and there is a faint promotional/sensationalistic tone to it. I removed the "themes" section outright because it read more like OR or an opinion piece than a real theme section and lacked sources to back up the claims of the themes. The thing about theme sections is that you have to have something to back it up and verify that these are actual themes and not just something that you personally read into it. It's not the worst I've read, but it's bad enough to where I'd recommend that if this is userfied, it would be a very good idea to have it looked over by another editor. Fair note for any coming in: I might end up cleaning the article up to remove the worst of the prose or I might leave the rest "as is", as I don't really think this has a snowball's chance of surviving unless the book gains a lot of coverage before the AfD's end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient coverage. 1292simon (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2013 (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.