Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant Parade


 * 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. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Elephant Parade

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

Contested prod. Non-notable book. Fails WP:BK. Could not find any reliable sources. Millbrooky (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following relate pages because it is a duplicate of the article linked above:


 * Delete. Only sources found on Google search are reprints of press releases. Also noted that when prod was contested, two other tags were deleted with no explanation. Suspect this is nothing more than vanity article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Someone wrote this book and is trying to include an article about it in this encyclopedia. There are an awful lot of templates on their talk page, but not a single humanoid explaining how things work.  These are actual people whose articles we are rejecting.  I don't disagree with the above comments, but some humanity would be a good thing. Not trying to attack anyone, just sharing a comment.  Please accept in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that Wikipedia is deluged with self-promotional articles, most of which are deleted without even getting a deletion discussion. (Have a look at the deletion log to see how often articles get deleted as an A7.) If Wikipedia was to allow in every article when deletion might hurt someone's feelings, it would cease to function as an encyclopedia. Likewise, there are only finite number of volunteers patrolling the pages, and you cannot reasonably expect them to write personalised messages each time. People who have replied generally get a reply from a human back, and, in case cases, get enough help needed to save the article (not that I can see any way of saving the article in this case). I personally would require non-autoconfirmed users to confirm their intended article is not vanity/spam/copypaste article before before allowing them to start writing (in which case, you have no grounds to complain if you ignore that and it gets deleted), but that's my own view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are correct. Thank you for taking the time to investigate and consider whether this subject is suitable for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I see there's a duplicate article located at Elephant parade. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to the nomination above. --Millbrooky (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Themfromspace (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources could be located so the article fails WP:BK Captain-tucker (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The book is published through CreateSpace, an on-demand publisher. The only coverage I can find on Google News is a press release.  There is no evidence of any significant reviews or other coverage that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per nominators.  Im per a t § r (Talk) 15:34, 11 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.