Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfly weeds


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Butterfly weeds

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Book released June 2012, no evidence at all of notability. One sentence plus a plot summary  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I cleaned the article up a little, but I'm a little dubious of the sources. I removed the ones that I could prove were either obvious press releases or were proven to have been posted by the author herself. (Her real last name is Brandt.) Just in case she or one of her people comes to weigh in on this AfD, I'm listing why each one doesn't seem to be usable.
 * 1) This one seems to be the most likely to be a real article, although this is such a small news site that I don't really think it would be considered big enough to give notability.
 * 2) This is obviously a press release, which cannot show notability. It's considered to be a primary source.
 * 3) This one is labeled "press release" at the top, but in case that gets missed I want to show that the contributor's name is "Brandtlm7", the same name that the author uses on her Twitter account. In other words, a primary source and cannot show notability.
 * 4) This one is so very closely rephrased from the press release that I'm actually a little doubtful that it was written by anyone other than the author or one of her people. I ended up removing it because it's rather dodgy and even if it was re-written by someone on the staff, it's so close to the PR that it'd really only be a trivial source.
 * So far the only semi-usable one is the first source. I'll see what else I can find, but it doesn't look good.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tried to clean it up and look for sources, but other than the one semi-usable source that I left on the article, there's just nothing out there that is both in-depth and non-primary.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems a clear case of CoI and WP:TOOSOON (non-notable book) with someone trying to use Wikipedia for early publicity for their book. Well done to Tokyogirl79 for careful analysis showing absence of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have thanked Tokyogirl79 myself for her efforts to salvage something from the wreck  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per info from Tokyogirl179.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:23, 3 July 2012 (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.