Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Blythe


 * 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 redirect to Blythe (doll). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This Is Blythe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book from non-notable author with virtually no in-depth coverage.

Long existing article that has a somewhat problematic editing history. Sources are poor, and would seem to fail reliability test. Time to put it before the community for review. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete i cannot find anything about this. --Axiomus (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing to suggest that this is at all notable. I have also reverted to a previous state to remove a copy/paste of the official blurb, and requested revdel.  G M G  talk   14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Redirect per Mduvekot.  G M G  talk   19:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Blythe (doll) Gina Garan has received some coverage of her work, for example here, in what I think is a questionable "Forbes contributor" source, and here. There are mores sources but in totality it's not enough to make this book notable enough for a standalone article, or even for an article on Garan herself. Mduvekot (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect is reasonable alternative to deletion, though its mention there should be sourced. Don't think this discussion warranted the relist. czar  04:02, 11 October 2017 (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.