Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die?


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die?

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

Non-notable book; no claim to notability; no third-party references at all; no third-party references to establish notability. Just an advertising page to promote the title, apparently. Mikeblas (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I need more of an explanation why this book fails the notability guidelines to weigh in here. If only some books are notable, what makes them so? Where are the guidelines that I can use to evaluated this book against? Failing any detailed explanation, my instinct would be to keep the article, but demand a thorough re-write. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable is a poor word for the problem here. The basic thing is that we write articles to be neutral and factual, which means we summarize sources (the alternative is just adding our own opinions). Third party sources are needed, otherwise we are just repeating what the book itself says, in which case we're not really writing an encyclopedia article so much as a book summary. In the case of this book, there seem to be no third party sources. None are cited in the article, none come on a search of Google Books or Lexis-Nexis. No third party sources, no article. If you need a policy, see WP:V which says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It's rather sad that an admin would want to keep the article despite the lack of any third party sources, by the way... --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely non-notable, reads like an advert. GiantSnowman 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:17, 11 April 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.