Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living the secret


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Living the secret

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable book which fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for books. Googling with the search term "living the secret" "Mohit Tahiliani" retrieves nothing on Google News or News archives. The search term retrieves only four hits on Google Books, one of which is the book itself and the other three of which are false positives, as they predate the book by several years. The author of the article is also the author of the book and may have a conflict of interest. CtP (t • c) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a search for this book, but was unable to find any reliable sources at all to show notability. The book that inspired the author to write LtS might be notable, but that notability is not extended to anything that might have been based off of it. This is ultimately a non-notable book per Wikipedia's guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per above, which duplicates the results of my own search.  This is also not worth redirecting to the more notable book/author, and I cannot imagine that redirecting to the author's name would be useful; I found nothing that would make me think the author was notable where the book is not..  Ubelowme U  Me  17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say redirect to the author's article if there were one, but there is not and I see no reason why there should be through WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that the article should be deleted. Neither the book nor the author is noteworthy. A google search for the author or the book throws up no notable result. The article conveys no information at all, about the book or otherwise; and also lacks basic structure of a wiki article. I did an amazon search for the book with the author name. The amazon best sellers ranking for the book is in millions (which is bad) and there are no verified purchases, which makes one believe the book and the author are not doing well at all. I see no reason why this article should not be deleted. Alastor Moody (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2012 (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.