Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Sawyer, Avenger


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer, Avenger

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completing unfinished nom for IP because NOBODY EVER REALIZES WHEN AFD DISCUSSIONS ARE REDLINKED ANYMORE! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability, subject fails WP:N. Zero references. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-published (Writer's Club Press is part of iUniverse), very little to be found except the fact it exists, I can't even find anything third-party except sites selling it, and not a single review. Thus, fails WP:BK. Black Kite 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is obviously someone's personal vendetta against either the book or the author. Up until a few days ago Tom Sawyer, Avenger was a stub, which it had remained for the past several years.  Now that it has been expanded, and new information has been added, it is slated for deletion.  Doesn't make sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodo3019 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)  — Frodo3019 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Tens of thousands of people have said exactly what you've just said and tens of thousands of articles about subjects that did not assert notability under WP:N and provide any reliable, third-party sources to establish the notability were deleted anyway. We have, probably, hundreds of thousands of stubs that haven't been deleted simply because nobody has seen them yet. If you want this article kept, I recommend you find some reliable third-party sources and attempt to establish why this book is notable and forget about the unbacked claims about vendettas and bias. We've heard it a million times before. EDIT: I have added the one reference you provided and properly formatted it. I also cleaned up the article a lot, removing a lot of unnecessary bulk. If you can find other such references, book reviews, anything at all, please provide them and I will do my best to help you format and include them. If you can provide these references and establish notability, I will change my vote to keep. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That "one reference" doesn't seem to actually contain any content. I've gotten a blank archive notice each time I've tried to review it, and the name "New author continues Tom and Becky's adventures on the Internet" seems to indicate this isn't even an ink-and-paper book. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is an "ink and paper" book. It may not be the best quality ink, or paper, for that matter.  You can take that up with the publisher.  But the words themselves do exist outside of the internet on over 300 pages in bound form.  The point of my expanding the article on Wikipedia was to offer more information on the story itself.  To consider that it was much safer, under the radar, as a stub is ironic.  --Frodo3019 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - How much longer do we need to wait until we know whether or not this article will be deleted? I won't add anything more to it before I know for certain.  --Frodo3019 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Debates are usually open for a week. --Chris (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While self-published works can be notable, there is no indication this is. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - Either let the article stand on its own, and let it be expanded, or merge it with articles about other "Tom Sawyer" related works. --Frodo3019 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC) — Frodo3019 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Striking duplicate !vote. Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * - The "keep or merge" was not meant as an extra vote, rather it was meant as a suggestion, an alternative to deleteing the article outright. Can we debate this idea, or no?  --Frodo3019 (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability - self published. - Josette (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (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.