Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder By Tejuana & Treachery By Bush and the Supreme Court


 * 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   Speedy delete by Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Murder By Tejuana & Treachery By Bush and the Supreme Court
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Judging by the username, this article was written by the author and needs a lot of cleanup if it stays. Google throws up nothing except a few Wikipedia mirrors and one or two other sites - nothing that actually says anything about the book. Some of the author's claims are rather dubious. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable and likely selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not Notable  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Yamakiri  TC     [ §]    07-3-2008 • 00:38:15 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Checked the copyright records. The article is written by the author (which does not appear to be disclosed in the article--he refers to himself as "the author" without disclosing his name). Also he mentions some "litigation", unsourced, which appears to be designed to drum up some controversy. No Supreme Court mention on Oyez, no mention on Google--I would think there would be some coverage somewhere. The Sydney article doesn't appear in their archives, and the Melbourne title is too generic to search--but no article in 10 years has the keyword "Tejuana". I would thus consider this an advertisement. Eauhomme (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR and lack of WP:N. Artene50 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Those Australian newspaper references look very dubious - the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't have a 'section A' and the titles it's claimed that the stories were printed under are awful grammatically. Moreover, the SMH and Age are arguably Australia's leading newspapers, and they don't print book reviews or articles on unknown authors on page 7! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Bilge. A steaming pile of Dingo's kidneys.  Etc. Nick mallory (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Blatant advertising with a side of hoax references. The only reason I'm not speedying is because there's an AfD underway. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * G3 Obviously made up one day, feigned sources, no proof it even exists. Hoax. So tagged. (Gwalla, you can speedy something that's up for AfD if the speedy fits.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:03, 3 July 2008 (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.