Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. I also note that the article was also a WP:COPYVIO as substantial portions were either closely paraphrased or word for word taken from this website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article concerns a self-published book. The article is promotional and possibly written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete: WP:Complete bollocks. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Complete bollocks, or, if we're to get lawyerly about it, a total lack of independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. WP:Complete bollocks seems fair. Oculi (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as WP:CB. Blythwood (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WHATTHEWHAT?. I don't even know what this is. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is at least WP:Complete bollocks, and borders on WP:Patent nonsense. I'd be okay with it being Speedied under G1, although I admit it's a borderline case, since the sentences individually sort of make grammatical sense, even if together they make no coherent sense, nor are any of the words even vaguely related to the title of the article.  Could also speedy per WP:SNOW? Fieari (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2016 (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.