Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final Mission of Extortion 17


 * 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 Ed Darack. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Final Mission of Extortion 17

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG. The airspacemag and Smithsonian links are both connected to the publisher. The BEFORE search indicated only mere mentions like this or websites selling the book. I don't think the Publishers Weekly review is enough to connote notability. It would make more sense to add a sentence about this book in the article about the event, itself. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to the article about the author per WP:TOOSOON. This could be notable when it is published in September but at the moment there is simply nothing to work with in regards determines notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - is fine, although I'd also support delete. This is an unpublished book and could easily have enough reviews in two weeks, but right now is unencyclopedic PR, in my opinion. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Easy alternative to deletion. PW and LJ are librarian trade mags—they review all books, not with discretion to the "notable" ones. Wait for several reliable, secondary source reviews. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  04:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * REdirect (if not delete). It looks like an advert for a rather ordinary book.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect, to author article; otherwise, a lightweight book promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 19 August 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.