Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of the 9


 * 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Legend of the 9

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources given to back claims of book notability. Search is difficult because of the namesake XBox game, but returns no relevant third-party sources. The ISBN seems to be fake, no publication references on Google Books, nothing. Does not seem to meet WP:BN at best. Article is also tagged as WP:COI, author is probably the creator of the article. This might be a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The ISBN returns no hits for either Philippines or Australian book resources. Also note the supposed cover image looks too much like a doctored screenshot of a game. §FreeRangeFrog 02:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fake ISBN, the cover that looks like a laughably cheap Photoshop job, the fact that the only Google hit for it if you search with both the book's title and the author's name is the Wikipedia article... That last one is really obvious, because for almost any modern book out there that's actually been published, you're going to get some hits. Also, the "Fenner Arts Award" the manuscript supposedly received doesn't seem to exist, or so the 0 Google hits for it seems to indicate (and I find it hard to believe that there's a literary award out there that is never mentioned on the internet). All of this is fishy. It's a hoax. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me correct myself: it might actually exist, because Central Books, the publisher, appears to do print on demand. Maybe someone actually wrote this. But that'd make this a vanity press project, which doesn't automatically make something non-notable, but certainly kind of raises the bar. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Disdain. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Captain Disdain. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2009 (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.