Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduced By Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney At Large


 * 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 redirect to Chuck Tingle. As noted here, opinion pieces are not adequate evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Seduced By Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney At Large

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources are all passing mentions of the book either in an article about the author or in 2 very similar articles about Bigfoot Porn. Does not show it meets WP:NBOOK the only references found in a before search were user generated content blogs and passing mentions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect (to Chuck Tingle). Sources aren't proper reviews, but instead are either primary, fail independent (including interviews), or are only mentions. WP:NBOOK not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it has reliable sources such as the The New York Times, if not metge into the author's article.Ndołkah (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is an opinion piece, so doesn't have the independence and editorial control needed to help Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the NY Times is an excellent source if I ever sawr one!Ndołkah (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the general course of things the NYT is a great source. But they also have op-eds (columns in the UK), which aren't vetted by the editor or fact-checked. As such it ceases to be a suitable source. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chuck Tingle - notablility for stand-alone article not established - Epinoia (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (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.