Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Artists


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Indeed, it is non-notable and promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Secrets of the Artists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet book notability. No references to reviews of the book. Purely promotional by the artist-author.

By the way, I can't even find a listing of this book by a Google search, and that is saying something. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Prealism, also by the same author. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/RUCS by the same author.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  02:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't find even unreliable sources about this book. Part of a group of promotional COI articles-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  02:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Completely non notable and a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – Blatant spam, and clearly non-notable. V2Blast (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously promotional, and failing all relevant notability criteria (WP:BK), no reviews, no awards, significant contribution, not subject of instruction, author not subject of academic study. Because no sources exist, it also fails our verifiability policy. I did find a reference on worldcat; the book is obviously self-published and only appears to be held in the National Library of New Zealand, which is not an indication of notability. Mduvekot (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (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.