Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book Addict Diet


 * 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. Tone 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Book Addict Diet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ESSAY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is pure OR, plain and simple. I won't be surprised if this is speedied within the next hour, to be honest. It's sweet that someone wants to help others lose weight, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for this sort of thing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete - As TG says, this is OR in its purest, rawest form. Note the multiple parentheticals and use of the rare first-person noun? I share her sentiments that it sounds like a interesting diet (I'm a bookworm myself), but it doesn't belong in the Wiki. To the author: I look forward to reading this diet in a NYT bestseller within a few years. Hey, it sounds better then others I've seen up there... NLinpublic (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This isn't even an encyclopedia article at all. Circumspect (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Not encyclopedic (completely OR, and not well written at that), no references in article, no sources available on google books, google news, even just typing in 'The Book Addict Diet' in Google gives you nothing. --Stvfetterly (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - A hoax made-up by the author, bogus how-to, original research. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just because something is "made up in a day", or badly fails WP:NOTESSAY doesn't make it a "hoax"...put it this way; its not claiming to be something it isn't. NLinpublic (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (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.