Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonza voyage


 * 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) 12:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bonza voyage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are only 32 Ghits for "Bonza voyage", and all of the relevant ones are clearly the author promoting his own work. No hits in Google news.  Book is published by LuLu, a borderline vanity press which charges its authors to publish their works.  The uncited critical acclaim section is corrupted by weasel words. Furthermore, the author has an apparant conflict of interest with the site.Themfromspace (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't. You can publish there without paying a penny. - Mgm|(talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I was a bit too consice with my wording about Lulu. While they don't charge to publish a book, they do charge for services that standard publishers do not, such as marketing promotions.  The reason I brought up the publisher is that anyone can publish through Lulu, so the fact that the book is in existance is not an argument for its notability. Themfromspace (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources only show it had one favorable review. Nothing else in the article is covered. Also, if we can speedy articles on album for which we don't have artist articles, it stands to reason we shouldn't keep the book if we don't have an article on the author. - Mgm|(talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Book articles should be kept if the book is notable like my articles with red linked authors. Same with albums. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete book is not even in Worldcat. We do not speedy books because it is too hard to recognize on sight which ones might be important -- and there are a great many notable authors, especially of books from the earlier & middle parts of the 20th century we don't have included. This is probably not the case with popular music, so the deletions are safer. I've pulled a lot of prize-winning undoubtedly notable book articles off of Prod--the people entering them don't realize what makes for notability, and people nominate for deletion without checking. Not that i recognize them all either--but I do check. DGG (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's creator recently removed the AfD notice on the article's page. I have restored the tag. Themfromspace (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to satisfy Notability (books), article more intent on promoting the book rather than establishing notability. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, would not appear to meet any of the five notability criteria at WP:NB. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (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.