Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introvertism


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Introvertism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely non-notable book - if books were eligible for A7 it would be A7 material. Page is just a book blurb and I'm willing to bet that the page creator is the author. I guess ebooks could be considered "web content" but I think that's stretching the definition a little. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with the nomination. Also, this was a previously deleted article. This is a self-published book that is being promoted here. Ktin (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: a self-published e-book with no evidence of notability. Given the messy and somewhat disruptive editing that's occured, it may be necessary to salt the title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: my vote as the page's technical creator (I welcomed the user on their talk page and they converted it into this article). The page is entirely promotional for self authored book. I also support idea to salt the page. - Roller26 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Question is this eligible for a G11 speedy delete? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could certainly see an argument for a G11. I thought it was sufficiently borderline that I opted to AfD it instead (sure, it's intended to promote the book, but I didn't see any overtly promotional language - that's my usual standard for G11), but if someone were to speedy it I wouldn't object. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , It seems a blur now. But, at some point, I had requested a speedy deletion. Did I use the wrong code? Ktin (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , huh, interesting - you did indeed tag this page for deletion, in a sense. There was a previous version of this article which was A7'd by as non-notable web content. I guess that the page creator also created the same page in the Book: namespace, since I moved Book:Introvertism here (as a misplaced article) and then AfD'd it. As I said in the nomination, I think that calling an ebook "web content" is stretching the definition a little (otherwise I would have tagged it for A7 myself), but I'm not going to make a fuss over it. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete E-books have not previously been considered web content. It may just be a technical distinction, but I think ti would need considerable consensus first. I do notthink it fits G11--the purpose is obviously promotional, but the content is descriptive. I think the decision will be clearer as an ordinary delete.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably speedyable; I don't see a notability claim (also, created by a banned sock: G5 speedyable on those grounds). OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:10, 8 September 2020 (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.