Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry the Lizard

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 --JForget 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry the Lizard

Larry the Lizard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Children's book. The author of the article denies that the book is either of two already in print, but does not provide an ISBN or other reference. So I assume it is MADEUP. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can find no evidence that a book by this name, by Patrick Schiller and Max Newton, has ever been published. It may well have been "created", but it certainly lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. --Lu Ta 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Lu Ta, I can't find any evidence that the book exists, nor can I find any online store that sells it. No ISBN number, looks like a hoax. Trusilver 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is cruel to call it an hoax. I am perfctly willing to believe it exists - just one copy - the original! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: The book doesn't exist, as state above. Dwilso 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons above. What's intriguing is that there have been lots of authors who thought of creating a character called "Larry the Lizard", decades before "the idea was first thought of during the early year of 2006 by authors Patrick Schiller and Max Newton". This shows that it's been done, with Larry being either an allegorical amphibian, or a human "lounge lizard". None of these books seems to have had any impact, so "Larry the Lizard" keeps getting re-invented. That's interesting, albeit not interesting enough to merit an article. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non existant book. Soxred93 (u t) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't matter whether the subject exists or not; the question is whether or not its notable enough for inclusion; obviously, it isn't, given the severe lack of sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete bad photoshop book cover tells me 'hoax'. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Same reasons above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable if not a hoax. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 00:51, 1 May 2008 (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.