Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese
- 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- 漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
Seems to be somewhat self promoting Uberaccount (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: After first declining a speedy deletion request on the article, I looked into the details, and ended up basically removing everything. The majority of the article, and all of the sources (except for the book itself) were actually about Bend, Not Break, which is this author's second book. I can't even find any libraries carrying the book (searching in WorldCat), nor does anything relevant seem to come up in English when I search either for the Chinese characters or the transliteration WorldCat offers. As such, the book does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG. If there's even a single independent source information about the book should be included on Ping Fu, the author's page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - I've never seen any true evidence this book even exists (and isn't a hoax of some kind, perpetrated by Fu's detractors). Certainly no evidence of notability whatsoever. Its constant recreation by SPAs only further strengthens this case. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When a book's existence can't even be reliably shown, then it certainly isn't notable. I would like to see multiple reliable neutral english language sources before a mention is even included on the author's bio or other book page, and then only there. That's because any possible or future notability of this book doesn't appear to be independent of the author and her other book, since it is only being used to defame her or belittle her other book (which is not a reason for deletion, but it does point to the fact that it is not independently a notable subject). First Light (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no evidence of third party coverage. fails WP:NBOOK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt No evidence book exists, let alone that it is notable. Safiel (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. Yworo (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Book must exist IRL per WP:NBOOK. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.