Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The mayflower phoenix


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The mayflower phoenix

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable book. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays. (declined prod) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The book appears to be completely unnotable, with no non-primary sources even mentioning it.  On top of that, the supposed publisher of the book, "Constellation Concepts Ltd", as far as I can tell, never published a single book aside from the books mentioned here, which leads to believe that it is self-published.  It kind of makes you wish that there was a speedy deletion criteria that could be applied to books.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, they don't really crop up enough to warrant their own criterion. PROD (usually...) works just fine. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete ‣ No evident notability for the book (notability that would have had to be achieved in a matter of months anyways...) plus the article is looking pretty spammy in general, as well as being created by an SPA. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as pretty blatant spamming. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this book has any notability and that this article is anything other than spam.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently self-published e-book with no coverage in reliable independent sources, no library holdings, so notability is not demonstrated, plus the article is largely a political opinion piece at the moment. But notability is the deciding issue - it has none. This one is clear-cut to me; I would support a snowball delete and early closing of this AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is self-published by a non-notable author so no reason to keep. Nor it has won any good awards or has got any reviews.  →TSU tp* 04:27, 30 May 2012 (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.