Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis (Shahrul Halim Heptalogy)


 * 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. North America1000 21:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Genesis (Shahrul Halim Heptalogy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reason to believe that this book is in any way notable. Unreferenced article which is virtually all (turgid) plot summary TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Article itself is no worse than many and better than many.   Needs a lot of work, difficult to read, and some poor grammar and idiom.   If reliable secondary sources do not turn up then relist some time later.   Not surprising that there are no or very few references if it was only published in 2016 . . .  (If we deleted every publication that was not a best seller day one there would be very few books, very few pop groups, horse jockeys, records, etc. in wikipedia . . .) Aoziwe (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And Wikipedia would be a better place.... See WP:TOOSOON. And, regarding to e quality of the article, WP:DYNAMITE. The only convincing argument for keeping this is that it might save somebody the pain of reading such wogeous tosh.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmh !  I suspect we might actually be in furious agreement ! My point was there is a defacto standard even if we do not like it or it has consequences - better for a guilty man to a go free than to hang an innocent one ?   Cheers   Aoziwe (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a de facto standard and that is WP:NBOOK. How you !vote Keep and say "there are no or very few references" is a little odd. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. It does not currently meet the standard, but it is a new article about a new subject.  I think it should be given time.  I did say above 'for now . . . relist later'.   I do not think WP:TOOSOON applies either.  It is a published book with a non trivial article.   I agree the article is certainly (!) not the best one ever written, but this applies to many.   I will not complain if it goes, but I think we should be encouraging people who are prepared to put in the effort someone obviously has on this one, it is not just a couple of glib lines like some, to put in their effort in a better way rather than just clobber their work.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The notability guideline for books applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NBOOK. There are so few result results and not a single mention in any reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On a side note, the image of the cover might be a copyright violation. Can someone confirm and tag it? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:BOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any useable sources. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment appears to be a case of WP:PROMO. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as apparently published this year, nothing else convincing for its own notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:47, 9 May 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.