Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes


 * 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. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Flunks WP:N and WP:SPAM; no reliable sources; self-promotional. (While self-promotion is not a reason for deletion, the article's other failings are.) THF (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The fact that Stonemason nominated me for deletion should be wiped out because I changed some of his edits on the All-White Basketball league. I think that the deletion should be held off for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) What spam are you talking about. At the very least some promotional items have been removed personally. I just think it's shady that the guy that I'm involved in an edit war with is the guy who nominates this page for deletion. Now that's a conflict of interest. The deletion process is too subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of the four "References" currently in the article, three do not discuss the book at all, and the fourth was written by the author of the book. No clear claim is ever presented for the notability of the book in the article: no awards, no reviews, no critical reception. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources for the content or importance of this book, and the article appears to be a mix of self-promotion of the book and promotion of the book's author's personal theories. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete gsearch for strings "plain talk" "corey washington" gave no RS hits. self published through xlibris, which has no relevant acceptance criteria. a less spammy article may be recreated in the future if it actually does become notable per WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not nominate this page for deletion, User: THF did. Get your facts straight. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the closing admin discounted Stonemason's opinion, there are five other editors with good rationales to delete the article. That's enough to show a consensus that the article should be deleted. If you want to build a case for keeping the article, focus on the identified flaws in the article and show where it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

—C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * if the only problem with this article was that it was overly promotional, i would have nominated for keep and probably worked to fix it (i do a lot of small fixups for book/author articles). if the article does stay, i will comment on the "spamminess" on the article talk page. its not relevant here as its not grounds for deletion. it was a throwaway comment essentially in support of its potential future notability. sorry if i sounded too flippant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, absence of reliable sources = nonnotability. Saying "delete per nom" isn't equivalent to nominating this for deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-published book, no reliable sources to establish notability. Glass  Cobra  18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam being pushed by several SPAs which are being researched for sockpuppetism. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per what everyone has already said above. Fails WP:N, WP:SPAM, and about half a dozen other policies. Main editor appears to be author of the self published book WP:COI. He has also used a WP:SOCK to avoid WP:3RR. So delete all the way. Rapido (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (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.