Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindLegends (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WindLegends
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources, advertising only. Doesn't come close to meeting any of the criteria for Notability (books). First book in the series shows in WorldCat of only being in three libraries, whereas notability guidelines say that if a book does not meet the threshold of being in a minimum of 12 libraries plus the national library it automatically is not considered notable. DreamGuy (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the results of the first AFD, this may qualify as a speedy delete under recreation of previously deleted content, depending upon if this version is similar to the old version. DreamGuy (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. And potential blocking of User:Windlegends for non-stop addition of mentions of the author Charlotte Boyett-Compo to various pages. They seem to have been up to this for a while so I don't think that they're going to stop anytime soon. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that speedy deletion does not appear to apply, as when it was last deleted five years ago, it appears to have been done on the basis of copyright violation, not discussion. Still, I see nothing here to indicate notability. Note also that the presumed COI SPA who created the article did so several years ago, so the proposals above are unlikely to serve any encyclopedic purpose. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find independent coverage. Bongo  matic  00:10, 13 November 2011 (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.