Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fooling Ewe


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fooling Ewe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article of a non-notable book. I prodded the article, but it was summarily removed by the author.

The article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. There's nothing neutral about it, there is a single third-party reference mentioned (though I found the review, and it's hardly substantial), and it consists of just repeated outlines of the book. I feel like I've been generous by not just outright deleting it as spam.

I couldn't find much worthwhile for the article. The Facebook page has 3800 fans, while the Twitter page has 191 followers. A quick Google search nets 133k results, but I was getting false positives on the second page (and some of the other hits I was getting were of the Kickstarter for the book, rather than the book itself).

The author,, has no edits outside of promoting this book; aside from writing this article, he's also linked to his article from ewe and word play. He is also potentially, given that that's the only other substantial author of Fooling Ewe (assuming good faith, I'd say it's just him logged out, not a malicious effort to avoid scrutiny).

Promotion for this book has also spilled over to Commons. There, TJ22 has uploaded seven different images for the book; I've deleted five of them (I found the enwiki article while clearing out images on Commons that didn't have adequate permissions), and since those five were deleted, he's uploaded another two (duplicates of what I deleted) and restored them to the article.

Nothing against the book, but it just doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:BK.  kashmiri TALK  20:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It skirst close enough to the advertising line that I would have nominated it for a speedy deletion for advertising. But as we are here at AFD, I'll go with regular delete.  There is no signficant coverahe in independent reliable sources.  The article makes claims for praise.  I found the Stacy Juba review which is essentially a blog entry on her site and not a reliable source.  I also found the NYParenting review which is all of 4 sentences long.  I don't see this as compelling evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2013 (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.