Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolt rising


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Revolt rising

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable future novel, completely fails WP:NBOOK. Author removed another editor's speedy tag, and I'm willing to accept that the article is not entirely blatant advertising, since it does discuss the author and plot. Author contested my PROD, so here we are.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article does not meet the criteria for a notable future novel, but don't you all think we might appear biased to remove this considering the tense political nature of the novel? Maybe the potential for a lawsuit? --SonofLiberty1 (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC) — SonofLiberty1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please read No legal threats and immediately retract or clarify this before you get blocked.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 06:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL too. Lawsuit? On what possible grounds? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to clarify my comment. I am not threatening any type of lawsuit; I was simply pointing out the potential for one. However, based on what I see here, it appears there's nothing to worry about. In regard to the basis for a potential lawsuit, I thought it might appear discriminatory to delete this due to its political nature. But since the author clearly didn't meet the requirements for a legitimate article, I presume he wouldn't have a legal case. Thank you and I apologize for any confusion.--SonofLiberty1 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — SonofLiberty1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Delete as spam. No indication of notability; not even published yet.  Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 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.