Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Life: Meaning, Purpose & Death


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  12:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Life: Meaning, Purpose & Death

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not a single non primary source, and the 'book' is just a collection of AI generated text. Every part of this reads like an ad. Great how they even included the Amazon link. Most likely a low effort attempt to make a quick few bucks, unless if anyone can find a single source that even mentions it. – Popo  Dameron   talk  21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –  Popo  Dameron   talk  21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete no non-primary, non-database etc. sources. Could easily be spam (which the book basically is itself). Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: the article is definitely spam and should just be speedied. Creator is obviously the author, and they have been systematically spam-bombing numerous other articles as well. Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with nominator. BEFORE check shows no appropriate sources that would substantiate either a claim to general notability or specific notability per WP:NBOOK MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. I prodded this article, the only reason this Prod was removed is because an editor is disruptively WP:HOUNDing me, causing more work for everyone for no benefit at all. The article is spam of an utterly non notable book. Fram (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * please see my comment below, which was responding to abuse elsewhere. I didn't realize Fram was insulting me, making accusations here too. After I encountered a number of bad AFD nominations by Fram (i think all ended "keep"), i did browse their contribiutions and see other bad edits, and questionable prods and i did remove at least 2 prods. Their abusive-type commenting here is obnoxious IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed 9 prods, 7 of which are already deleted and 2 which are so far unanimous deletions at Afd apart from you. Fram (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete; in addition to what's said above, there are no Google results for this book title. I was about to nominate it myself when I saw the template had been applied. jp×g 08:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the deprod said "I'm not sure this is not significant" - well it's a self-published book with no reviews or indeed any sources at all which weren't written by the book's author, and it looks like they wrote this article as well. I can't see how it's at all significant.  Hut 8.5  18:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above comments. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 19:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources mention this collection of AI-generated text, I was sure there would be something, but zero hits. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to meet our standards for Notability. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am the editor who chose to remove a "PROD" on this article (and apparently make some other edit in the article), with edit summary "rm PROD, edit some. I'm not sure this is not significant."  I recall that I was thinking the article was promotional-like, and I think I considered it possible/likely that it was started by someone close to the author or publisher.  But I considered it possible that the claim made was true, that the book was the first published poetry book largely generated by ChatGPT, or at least that it was one of the first such.  And I believe that having some list of first or early ChatGPT products is likely worthwhile.  If I could have found such a list-article easily I might have merged/redirected it myself, or noted on the list-article talk page that this poetry book should be considered as a possible list-item.  And, given no list-article is apparent, I do think it would be reasonable for this AFD discussion to consider the merit of creating one.  And then the decision here could be "Redirect" or "Merge" perhaps.


 * I make this comment in partial response to critical comments about me made elsewhere citing my removal of the PROD. For the record, I did remove the PROD.  I would welcome comments here whether that was totally unreasonable or abusive or otherwise bad on my part, or not.  Is my argument that a list-article should be considered, so far-fetched?  This comment by me and any further discussion on these lines is off track from the purpose of the AFD, but it seems relevant for me to try to reach those considering the validity of the article here, about the accusation of abuse made against me elsewhere.  So comment further or not.  Thanks for considering this, anyhow. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by potential coverage, and spam has no redeeming qualities whatsoever especially when it consists mostly of mundane easily sourced data. If this did become notable WP:TNT would still apply. Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2023 (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.