Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books written in unconventional ways


 * 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  Materialscientist (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Books written in unconventional ways

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unencyclopedic trivia. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LSC because inclusion in this list will necessarily be based on subjective and ambiguous criteria. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, starting with no indication of notability. A Google search using the title of the book found no relevant discussion of the topic.  A search using some of the content turned up two other Wikipedia pages: Books written in Different Ways, which was later moved to the page under discussion, and Five books written in five ways, which was Speedy Deleted as (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: A7 - individuals); however, there's no indication of what it might be a copy of.  Perhaps http://highrangebookofrecords.com/five-books-written-in-five-different-ways-using-pen-henna-needle-paper-carbon/, listed as one of the references; the Wikipedia page is closely based on it, though not clear to me if it is legally a copyvio.  However, what is clear to me from the original source is that these books were not originally written in unusual ways--which could potentially be a worthwhile article--but that some guy decided to transcribe these noteworthy books using unusual methods. Matchups 21:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as mentioned as this is not yet set for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ignoring the potential issues raised above, the inclusion criteria are too subjective.  If there is coverage of a specific phenomenon, such as transcribing the mirror image of a book, that could be created.  But we can't make up a list of subjectively "interesting" or "odd" things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also Articles for deletion/Needle writing for another contribution by the same editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I would not worry so much about the inclusion criteria. This is a poor excuse for a stub with no sources whatsoever. This could be a hoax article. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 5 January 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.