Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levon a


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Levon a

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BK. According to Amazon, the book was only released on April 5th. Appears to have garnered no significant attention. No significant coverage anywhere. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed this commentary about the book.http://www.teleread.com/jeff-radkes-levon-e-book-formatting-falls-short/ I think it clearly shows the book's uniqueness in this moment and why the article should be kept alive.

Also, the significance of Sheng Xue continues to be deleted from the internet using the 50 cent army and I think wiki should be more lenient in keeping good references of her place in our literature. — Loft64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - on the surface does not seem notable enough. But given the unique book, it might change very quickly. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Book has been out for 12 days; no reviews in PW or Kirkus, which means it is not even on anyone's radar. Publisher Bascom Hill Publishers is not quite a self-publish outfit, but it says that it only accepts authors who show up with "details on how you plan to market it". The Teleread site is notably fringe and that particular article was taken from a blog post elsewhere. The only plausible reason for the article is promotion of a newly published book. Note that user Loft64 is an SPA on this article. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched, found No reviews. No pre-pub mentions in reliable, secondary sources. Nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2016 (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.