Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Death of Small Wonders


 * 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   speedy delete. NW ( Talk ) 05:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Death of Small Wonders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is this a hoax? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but the original author seems to be overestimating the book's significance.--Azimuthoid (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — Azimuthoid (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Could you point me toward some reliable sources that verify this book's existence? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This guys mentions that it was made up for a test, 1, post #21 then #27. Nothing coming up on search to even suggest that it is real yet insignificant. If not speedied, then delete - frankieMR (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed even the sources offered seem hokey; the journals and book mentioned don't seem to have any existence beyond this article and the New York Times story can't be found in the archives of the NYT. Subject to change if anyone provides a source, but this looks rather definitely like a hoax, which would mean Delete FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax, per above, else delete per notability per the actual claim in the opening as being little known. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment AGF, please! Azimuthoid has asserted the existence of the subject but not its notability. If Azimuthoid can supply reliably verifiable sources for the subject's existence (or even any effectively traceable sources for the article - without more bibliographic information, the current ones aren't traceable and so can't currently count as verifiable, let alone reliable), that could be useful information for this discussion. But even if Azimuthoid can't, it is still impolite to assume a hoax on hearsay evidence when the mere existence (as distinct from the verifiable existence and notability) of the subject gives absolutely no grounds for keeping the article. PWilkinson (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for assuming good faith, but when this book is not mentioned on Google at all, nor is it mentioned in any of the millions of books archived on Google Books, it becomes rather difficult to believe that it exists. It is not true that the cited sources are untraceable- the New York Times does have an online archive of articles, but it doesn't seem to have ever published the article that is cited.  Parson's Publishing exists and has a web site, but the cited book does not appear in its catalog, and indeed it doesn't seem to publish literary analysis.  There is no such journal as 'Henderson's Literary Review,' or 'New York Metaliterature Journal.'   I am personally insulted by this reprimand, which accuses me of relying on 'assumption' and 'heresay evidence' when in fact I made a fairly thorough search trying to confirm the existence of this text, a search which you could easily have done for yourself before accusing me of failing to assume good faith.   I invite you to apologize. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, although I question your motives since it is truly I who should be apologizing to you, and not vice versa. --Azimuthoid (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is obvious a hoax. Google for any of the names of the references, and you'll find they don't exist.  Delete also the copy of this article he has on his user page. .  He should also be banned.  Only edits he ever made was for this hoax.   D r e a m Focus  03:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A search on WorldCat for "the death of small wonders" returns 62 results, none of which is a book by that title. Delete as non-notable at best, hoax at worst. Lady  of  Shalott  04:12, 15 May 2011 (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.