Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodmin Moor (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodmin Moor (novel)

Bodmin Moor (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

As far as I can tell, this is just a vanity published book. Mhari 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable book. I think Exmoor: Project Genesis should also be AfD
  • Good point. Should I add that under this? Mhari 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Its just a book. Not notable.--Anthony.bradbury 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - I don't see why it should be deleted. So it's a 'non-notable book' so what? Has anybody even read it? --Bobbo Bear 17:45, 24 January 2007 (GMT)
Kindly refer to WP:N and WP:NOT... Addhoc 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's non-notable then why should wikipedia have an article on it? Are you the author? Is it vanity published? --J2thawiki 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The author? No. What gave you that idea? No idea if it's vanity published. Just for the record, how do we determine if a book's non-notable? --Bobbo Bear 19:32, 24 January 2007 (GMT)
  • I just thought you might be as you seem to be a single purpose account that is the main/sole editor of the two articles on books by R J Bavister. Do you have any connection to the author or publisher? This link shows the proposed policy on what makes a book notable. --J2thawiki 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I have read both books and I think they're pretty good, and I've met a few people who 'claim' to know the author (probably lying). I wouldn't say the books are non-notable, they're not quite Harry Potter but I think they're worth articles in Wikipedia. --Bobbo Bear 19:13, 25 January 207 (GMT)
  • Weak Keep The article isn't much better or worse than most covered in 2006 in literature. Too soon to truly establish notability but nothing to indicate its just a vanity press product. User:Dimadick
  • Er, you mean besides the fact that it's from AuthorHouse, which is described as "generally considered a vanity press"? —Mhari* 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Kindly refer to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS... Addhoc 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless third party sources are included. Would respectfully suggest the inclusionist arguments given here are not valid. Addhoc 15:00, 28 January 2007 (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.