Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blank State


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Blank State

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotional/WP:COI article for a self-published book of questionable notability. Provided references are either primary sources or local media. No significant coverage from established independent reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I would argue that these are reputable sources, specifically independent ones. There is significant (though shorter) plot development in the listed sources that I would replace the story subheading with and quote, so as to keep it free from primary sources. Woodenrocketpress (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Woodenrocketpress — Woodenrocketpress (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is promotional in nature. "Blank Slate" by Dave Proctor, and published by Wooden Rocket Press (founded by Dave Proctor) has been created by user:Dvproctor, and the above keep vote is by user:Woodenrocketpress.  Aside from these conflict of interest issues, there is the concern about sourcing.  The only independent sourcing in the article is sourced to two University of Toronto newspapers.  This doesn't establish notability.  My own searches find no coverage outside of this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I think a review in The Varsity is a strong indication for notability in a Canadian novel. The article seems reasonably neutral, despite the COI issues. At the same time, I am not impressed by the absence of the book from WorldCat, which is why this is only a weak keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete  not even in WorldCat. I might have deleted it by speedy, as G11, promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The University of Toronto newspapers mentioned aren't jokes, and many of their staff have gone on to prestigious media jobs, and others to academic positions. Circulation for each is about 20,000. More to the point, they take their cultural coverage seriously, which is why the Varsity calls its entertainment section Review rather than Entertainment. On that basis, I think that these two student newspapers are reliable sources. PureGrainAudio.com also appears to be a reliable online source, on the basis of the explanation at http://puregrainaudio.com/about
 * not a formal requirement, but we've usually had reviews from at least two publications for books passing afd. And I do not accept the reviews of even a major student newspaper as showing notability for a book or any other work by a student or alumnus of that college.  DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have a problem with someone writing a WP page about their own book. If it becomes notable in the future, someone independent from it will create an article. In addition, I'm having trouble finding any RS that demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (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.