Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Royal Book of Lists


 * 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. Of note is that some of the !votes here have been disproven, such as those stating "no sources", etc. without further clarification. Sources were presented in the discussion, so the notion that there are no sources is false. These !votes did not mention anything about the depth of coverage of the sources presented, so taken verbatim, the statements are actually false. Nevertheless, even after properly dismissing these !votes, those that remain and are guideline based clearly lead to a consensus for the article to be deleted. North America1000 01:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The Royal Book of Lists

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable book; article effectively unsourced, and a search finds no secondary RS — fails WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. (PS: Also likely COI editing, but don't let that affect your reasoning.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: No sources. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!|!!1!1|11!|!! (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog . wooF 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There appears to be a review in the Victoria Times Colonist (December 23, 2001), p. 45, but it is behind a paywall. The snippet I can see appears substantial enough to say that there is at least one source potentially available for this subject. BD2412  T 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also found this: (879 words) - Bri.public (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Times Colonist reference is not very long, I'm not sure I would call it substantial as it is one of several reviews in an article. I feel that the review is trivial, so #1 of WP:NBOOK is not met.  Is the Guelph Mercury review longer?  None of the other criteria at WP:NBOOK are met.  Cxbrx (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The most charitable outcome would be WP:TNT, but nobody other than the author seems to have any interest in it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not the usual fare for a book article. Where are the reviews?   scope_creep Talk  21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No meaningful reviews, no sources. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete zero source. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient sources, limited reviews, and author also lacks the criteria of WP:AUTHOR []. RV (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No in-depth reviews or sources. Does not meet WP:BKCRIT. --Kbabej (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (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.