Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy threepwood


 * 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. Secret account 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy threepwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising or promotion Bwcajp (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless the user re-writes it such that it doesn't look like an advertisement. There are some reliable sources, but I am unsure if they are actually sufficient to meet WP:GNG - hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 09:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

From Paper Author - I have re-written the plot, added references to Literary Wales, South Wales Argus, Swansea Met University, BBC Wales, added another section with referenced quotes. Can you check again to make sure you are happy? Ive noted the references at the bottom haven't increased although ive added sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristy Maloney (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

From Paper Author - Someone has added a video clip as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristy Maloney (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find anything that makes the book seem particularly notable--no reviews or mentions at all. The author conceivably might be, but the article is probably too soon in any case. squibix  (talk)  12:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete/Userfy. The big issue is that this is simply WP:TOOSOON for this series to have an entry. There are two sources that talk about the author in relation to the books, but those aren't enough to show that the books or the author have received a depth of coverage. The other links in the article are uniformly unusable as far as notability goes and aren't really usable as external links either. I've kept the trailer and the book website in the EL, but the rest just show that the book and its author exist and existing is not notability. The other sources are almost all database entries or various types of primary sources. I've left a link on Kristy's page about some of the issues, so I'll try not to be too verbose here. I have no issue with someone userfying a copy of the page (WP:USERFY), although I will say that the previous version did have some problems with tone and read more like an advertisement or a fan page. (Not that I think that this was an attempt to spam or advertise, just that they're new to Wikipedia and are somewhat unused to writing in the NPOV here. I say this as someone who started off writing articles exactly like the original version.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:49, 24 February 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.