Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books About Curling


 * 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. It got snowy. j⚛e deckertalk 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Books About Curling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can see no value to this as an article Jac 16888  Talk 16:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - basically a list of books that appear to be non-notable individually, without sourcing indicating the topic is of general interest. I deleted most of the body of the text, as it consisted of book descriptions copied from sales sites and thus presented Copyvio problems, but even with descriptions, it had notability problems. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - It may be interesting content on the "in popular culture" section of the Curling article, but not notable enough for its own articleBali88 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of these (nor their authors) appear to be notable, so we wouldn't include even a mention of them in such a section. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is merit in having a section about curling in media such as books, films, and the like. HOWEVER I need to stress that none of these books should be in that section. I did a little digging on the books and these books are all decidedly non-notable. None of them have really achieved any coverage in reliable sources. I'd say that anything put into the article subsection should have at least one reliable source to assert some sort of notability, otherwise it'd just become the newest location for people to spam for their own work. Again, none of these books are notable enough to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Tokyogirl79; no encyclopedic merit to listing nonnotable fictional works, whatever potential there is for a section in the curling article on cultural depictions in notable works and/or by notable authors. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (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.