Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The pocket guide to divorce


 * 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   speedy delete WP:CSD advertising, like the other version. The text makes clear that this was a marketing exercise. A US university has a "revolutionary class that guides students through the multi-faceted world of book publishing"; the class picked this unpublished novel and "were given different tasks that would eventually lead to the publication of the manuscript." The tasks included "social media campaigning" and these articles are evidently part of that. What the class need to learn is that Wikipedia (a) is not "social media" and is not a place for "campaigning" and (b) has inclusion standards like WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The pocket guide to divorce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a non-notable book, with little apparant claim of significance. The sourcing is almost non-existant, and a quick google search was not encouraging. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Can't see much coverage on this. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - not finding any reviews or coverage in secondary sources. Could possibly merge into Neil Connelly.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I just CSD'd the same page by User:Mitch Higby with the same content. Please, someone, inform the class that Wikipedia is unacceptable social media. OrigamitePlease talk here 11:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd normally recommend a redirect, but the author's page also looks kind of dodgy as well. There's just no coverage for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the author's page and found enough to justify an article for him. I also created a redirect with the proper capitalization, so there's no need to turn this into a redirect after it's deleted. On a side note, I can't help but wonder if this is copyvio due to its promotional tone. It could probably be speedied as promotional in any case.
 * 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.