Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active Goodness - The True Story of How Trevor Chadwick, Doreen Warriner & Nicholas Winton Saved Thousands From The Nazis

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. Sole keep arguments are not giving policy or guideline based keep reasons: That it is obscure does not mean that Wikipedia has to promote it (WP:NOT#PROMO) and a self-published book with astroturf publicity does not impart NBOOK notability either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active Goodness - The True Story of How Trevor Chadwick, Doreen Warriner & Nicholas Winton Saved Thousands From The Nazis

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable book by non notable author Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. AfD nomination was made 20 minutes after page creation. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a one-line stub advertising a book. The three named people are certainly notable, but that does not mean that the book by an author who is a red link is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tacyarg (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reviews or anything that might lend significance to this newly released Kindle book.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published work through well known publishing house (Kwill Publishing) and available in paperback, online and in books stores — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorcheck2018 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) — Authorcheck2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Kwill Publishing will make a paperback of whatever you come up with if you pay them $4599. Package includes fake amazon.com reviews and other astroturf publicity. 91.155.192.188 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Very little known about the topic and is one of the few books availble
Dont Delete agree with above
Delete While the topic the book covers is important, this article is about the book which does not in itself seem to be notable. This looks suspiciously like an attempt at advertising. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed but book seems notable enough nevertheless
- Comment I am slightly concerned by the fact we have three anonymous posts arguing against deletion. I am have no objection against people arguing for the article's retention, and if notability can be shown then that would be great, but the lack of any identification makes it uncertain that this is not one editor. Dunarc (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where are the reviews in reliable, secondary sources? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:57, 28 January 2018 (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.