Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Line Madder


 * 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. speedy/snow delete, as a combination of promotionalism and sockpuppettry. There is no possible basis for an article here.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Line Madder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book published through an on-demand publisher. The synopsis is a copy-paste from elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete The synopsis issue is being resolved, the publisher is traditional enough to actually produce books, and in-depth coverage is difficult for a page editor when the content is being lost due to it being taken down quite often. It's a page that was created today. I know of at least three people currently on the task of making the page in-depth and all that. Stressinducedcoma (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Stressinducedcoma (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Stressinducedcoma (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * The level of depth of an article has no bearing on the notability of its topic. Notability relates to circumstances external to Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not for deletion. The publisher has a page. Why can't one of their books? There are pages for towns that have much smaller descriptions than this book. Would they not be in-depth too? What makes a book notable? Sales? Commonality? A major publishing house? Or is it just because you've never heard of it before personally? And is a copyright issue if the owner of the copyright solves it? If you would like to discuss these questions and more, please feel free to. I would like to hear your arguments. Shiroisnowflake (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Shiroisnowflake (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You should consider following the link I've provided to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability precisely to convey information about what "notability" means here and how it's assessed. Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't delete this As well as the above reasons, I don't think this should be deleted because its problems aren't large enough to warrant deletion. These are small issues and other articles are way worse for some of them. Maybe target those??? I don't know, you do you, but I still think that the only reason you're targeting this is because of the ACTRIAL talk page incident and that made it easy to hunt down. Enter the void 278 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Enter the void 278 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think a lot of people need to stop making wild accusations about the reason for this deletion nomination. I hadn't heard of ACTRIAL until after another editor wrote about it on Shiroisnowflake's talk page after I'd flagged the article for deletion. I flagged it because I came upon it during new page patrolling that I do nearly every day, and it clearly had problems of the sort for which articles are routinely deleted. It may come as a surprise to new contributors that Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, but it does. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not delete If any copyright issues have not yet been resolved on the synopsis, I have provided a new synopsis that I just wrote up. I believe it to be accurate of the book's contents (I've read it recently which is why I looked to see if it had an article, which led me to this conundrum) and that it should avoid any copyright infringement. If there are any issues on accuracy, I ask that someone who read the book contribute to the synopsis to improve on it. Kintsukuroi3 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Kintsukuroi3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Non-notable self-published book. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable book by non notable author (no Ghits beyond sm). Fails both WP:NBOOK for the novel and WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE for the author. This page should clearly have first been CSD-G12. It also looks very much as if a sock or meat farm has been voting here. Such votes should be accorded minimum weight - if any at all if they are not clearly based on policy/guidelines. please get up to speed with WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: A SPI has been opened here, please add any new arrivals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and block the group that first user references as working on this promotional page about a self published non-notable novel. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 15 September 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.