Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbie the Erbie


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Herbie the Erbie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Author seems to be barely notable, via Google test VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Text of article seems to be taken directly from Amazon reader review. Marjaliisa 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the review is taken directly from the description on the Amazon page, so it's a copyright violation, too.... Marjaliisa 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Molimo1 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC))It is a NEW book and a NEW character, that is why it is not that notable on Google. Try Yahoo, Try typing in the FULL book name. Look at Barnes and Noble.com, Target.com or Amazon.com. It is painfully obvious that this is just a documentation article of the book and the character. NOT an advertisment. PLEASE reconsider this deletion. (Molimo1 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete for now, not yet notable. All books aren't automatically notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BK. The only coverage I can find is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article indicated in the article, which is a three sentence announcement, certainly failing the significant coverage criterion. The publisher is PublishAmerica, which has been "accused of being a vanity press". The company does seem to expect its authors to assume substantial marketing costs, which brings us here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(24.209.129.179 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC))The last time I visited an encyclopedic source, it contained information on things that could not always redily be found from other sources. This was the point of my article. Go ahead and delete my article, but I have met your criteria. An encyclopedic source should be conducted as such and not run requiring criteria that seems to be more fitting to entry prerequisites in the Guiness Book of World Records. I provided documentation on my article. You are unfairly judging it purely on the fact that you don't find the publisher worthy. My documenting source, although legitimate is not long enough for you, and you blame me for trying to market this book though your website. I have not used any influential text causing any readers to want to buy this product. I have however, provided information about the character and the authors. There are many things contained in an encyclopedia that are not incredible feats, not legendary; like rainfall amounts in india, or how cans are made for example. Delete at will and have a great day.
 * Delete this cover note material (or from wherever it was taken). --Stormbay 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding T 17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - and in fact might have qualified for a speedy as spam. In any case, there are no reliable sources to establish notability.  Being published is insufficient. -- Whpq 17:48, 3 December 2007 (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.