Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real You Incorporated


 * 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.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Real You Incorporated

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

This article about a book was recreated after being speedied as blatant advertising, so we are going through the formal AfD process this time. Due to severe lack of WP:RS, this book fails WP:BK. Google throws up only blogs and press releases, while GoogleNews throws up nothing but press releases, except for a single review in a small Arizona newspaper: --despite the fact that the book has been out for five months. The fact that the article was created by a WP:single-purpose account might indicate an attempt at promotion here. In any case, WP:BK is not satisfied. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – I agree does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Even in the four references I found, they talked more about Ms Rouda rather than the book itself.  A mention about the book in Ms Rouda’s article would be appropriate.  However, I believe we may also see that article here at Afd shortly. ShoesssS Talk 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nom made a revert for an unsourced award here, but that also removed a valid source, here, which could show some notability. The book is there, at number 19. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – Does not meet criteria for inclusion according to WP:BK. Furthermore, reads like an advertisement. The source listed by JeremyMcCracken is a 19th place ranking on a monthly best seller list for a particular niche market based on data provided by a single non-notable vendor of the book; it should hardly count towards notability. &mdash; λ (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have notified the original author of the page, to inform them of the AfD and allow them to comment if they wish. &mdash; λ (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BK.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:16, 27 May 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.