Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater


 * 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 merge to Todd Slater. Not much difference between merge and redirect, but the book is mentioned at Todd Slater's article. Courcelles (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

changed this article to a redirect to Todd Slater but the creator (of both articles) reverted the edit. I cannot see that there is any call for a standalone article on this collection of poster art, apparentlyn yet to be published: I cannot see how any content cannot be properly included in the biog. This is not a work of literature which can be critiqued: it's a collection of pictures and there can be little to say about it qua book other than what's in and what's not. Article is effectively unsourced (amazon & publisher's website) as far as establishing notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I couldn't really find anything out there to show that this book is independently notable outside of Slater. The best source I could find was Evil Tender and it'd pretty much be considered a SPS on here. I've removed the merchant source (Amazon) as those cannot show notability and usage of this can be seen as an endorsement by Wikipedia of the site and/or product. There are supposedly some instances where you can use a merchant source, but those are exceedingly rare and this is not one of those instances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The page was nominated at Redirects for discussion on 2015 August 29. The result of the discussion was restore article. I suggested the reversion of the redirect on the basis that this book is due for publication shortly. I acknowledge the points made here and understand, should the book prove not to be notable in its own right, the need for it to be removed or replaced with a redirect. Ukebloke (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment..."The result of the discussion was WP:BOLD-ly restoring article. This is essentially a "wrong forum" close.". WP:NOTCRYSTAL, altho I will eat every one of my huge collection of hats if this book ever becomes notable in it's own right.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Merge not really seeing the need for such a short separate article. Artw (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no need for redirect because of the name, delete for lack of coverage. It is indeed WP:TOOSOON, and may well be so for a long, long time. --Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:51, 5 October 2015 (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.