Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan and Robbie


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan and Robbie

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

Non notable book series. IP (possibly author) removed prod with no explanation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm the editor that placed the prod. After the user contested the prod, I decided to search for sources and all I found was the author's site. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently, the author dosen't like the fact that his article will go bye bye. He keeps removing the templates.Someone should block him for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After I said that I would report him to AIV, he stopped removing the tag. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - this fails G7 and makes no effort to claim the book's notability. This appears to be a vanity advertisement page for a manifestly non-notable product. Direct the author to the relevant policies, kill the article, and save us all the time and energy. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a G7, G7 is "author requeests deletion". Do you mean A7 perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy per A7 and G11. Self-promotional, no notable third-party mentions.  Graymornings (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 does not apply to books and I don't think G11 is so serious it cannot be solved with editing. I'd rather see this AFD run its course. - Mgm|(talk) 15:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right - I somehow mistakenly thought the article was about the author, not the books. But I still think it's G11. If I could find any outside sources, I wouldn't, but it's irreparably an ad.  Graymornings (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article appears to be an advertisement. Additionally, recently added links are of random information that do not establish the books notability. Chasingsol (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Lack of reliable secondary sources establishing any notability. MuZemike  ( talk ) 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 21 December 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.