Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhino (Novel - 2008)

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhino (Novel - 2008)

Rhino (Novel - 2008) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Self-published book with no assertion of notability. Pairadox (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - clearly fails WP:BK. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BOOK. Poeloq (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; there should be a speedy for this, but there isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• No there shouldn't. The whole point of open-source is to bring as many eyes as possible to bear. Deletions under notability issues should always be brought to full AfD to give more people the chance to dig up information others are missing. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of that assertion, I have to wonder why there's a speedy category for people then. An author can be speedied, but his hand-written manifesto has to go through AfD? Not that I want to get into a debate, just pointing out the illogic of it all. Pairadox (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That, as I understand it, is a legal issue, to avoid/minimize defamation of living people and current organizations. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• That said, this one -- delete. Fails WP:BK. If it gets NYT reviews, then it can come back. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 12 January 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.