Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is why I hate you


 * 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 and redirect to Onision.  Sandstein  10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is why I hate you

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and does not cite any reliable, independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I couldn't find coverage to justify this passing NBOOK. The only mention I could find was this, which would not be enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving this over from the AfD talk page. I'm going to respond with the same note I did on the others: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per not even wrong and lack of WP:RS - there are exactly zero articles or reviews about this book in any newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability in the article, References do not support notability, my google did not find anything. (same as "Reaper's Creek") Jeepday (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Onision - not independently notable Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 21 January 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.