Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookscout


 * 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. If somebody wants to recreate this later, with proper reliable sources, they can, but it doesn't pass WP:V in its current state. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bookscout

 * — (View AfD)

Unsourced; prod removed with a request to list. Bringing it here. Hornplease 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The term is used widely in used book circles (both as bookscout and book scout). There are plenty of references to be added to the article.  SkierRMH, 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Put the definition into Wiktionary, and Delete the rest as unsourced. WMMartin 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wmmartin. Eusebeus 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devestating Keep. Being unsourced is not a valid reason to delete per WP:DELETE. This is clearly just as much a profession as a lawyer, and thus should stay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Put definition in Wiktionary, the rest is nearly info-free (selling on ebay, having resources for pricing, etc.) - Special-T 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- lucasbfr talk 06:21, 26 December 2006 (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.