Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greta Garbage's Outrageous Bathroom Book (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Greta Garbage's Outrageous Bathroom Book
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was kept at AfD over nine years ago. However, notability standards for books were not well developed at that time. The subject of this article appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Safiel (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, but I can't see where this is an official entry in that series. A search brought up nothing to show that it would pass notability guidelines and a look on the book's Amazon page shows that the only review it ever received was from a site called "Poop Report".(Which I'm only mentioning here so I can write "Poop Report", which for some reason I find hilarious at almost 2 AM in my time zone.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the 'keep' rationales in the 1st AfD had anything to do with notability criteria and the article would never have survived at AfD today. Pooped! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches yield almost nothing, certainly not notable. Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2015 (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.