Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warriors of the Light


 * 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) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Warriors of the Light

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

non-notable, unpublished book, written by pseudonym, with the major cooperation of another pseudonym Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why both prod and afd? Highest Heights (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because 2 different editors both thought it was deletable, and had 2 different opinions as to how this should be accomplished. The ProD and the AfD were both posted within the same minute, and neither I nor the other editor had any idea the other was proposing deletion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. An unpublished book would have to be pretty significant to get a page. Also, why invoke "privacy"? Little of this article makes sense. Could probably be speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Under what criterion is this speedyable? —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I didn't realize A7 did not apply to books; only thing left is G11, which is iffy in this case. Hairhorn (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Please recreate if and when book is published and mention in a reliable source. --Mblumber (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who prod'd the article. In any case, the reasons listed here for why the article should be deleted are pretty much what led me to prod it in the first place--as such, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. In addition to the notability/verifiability issues, based on the username of the article creator, this is likely also original research. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. With no names for the authors, no publisher, and no sources, this book is indistinguishable from any other randomly chosen piece of fan fiction. Bluntly put, I couldn't tell it apart from a hole in the ground. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 11:03, 2 June 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.