Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CGI Filmmaking, The Creation Of Ghost Warrior

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 of the debate was keep - no consensus. Fir e Fox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CGI Filmmaking, The Creation Of Ghost Warrior[edit]

This is a real book, and it may even have some notablity, with 15 reviews on Amazon; however, the article reads like an advertisment and was created by User:Keaze, whose only edits have been to this article and articles about the book's author (Timothy Albee) and his film (Kaze, Ghost Warrior). - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being uncertain of the inclusion criteria for books, I abstain. - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The book is sold online by Wal-Mart, and the nomination mentions the amazon reviews. In the absence of any specific rules on notability for books, I'd say that qualifies. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so are 600,000 other books; are they all notable and encyclopedic? Should we, say, have an article on Apples of Gold: A Six-Week Nurturing Program for Women, to pick an example at random? - squibix 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apples of Gold has just four very short reviews on amazon, so it's not much of a comparison. Regardless, I couldn't find any guidelines on notability for books. You have not made a case for non-notability in the general sense. If the only problem is that the article reads like an advert, then slap the {{advert}} tag on it, or rewrite it yourself. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no encyclopedic content, notability not established, most likely attemt for ad. Pavel Vozenilek 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. To be kept, a complete rewrite would be needed... and the testimonial quotation should be discarded as nonencyclopedic. B.Wind 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Klaw. -- JJay 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's be clear, this is an unexpandable stub about a non-notable book written by a small-time filmmaker to promote his own barely notable film, which it appears exactly 27 registered IMDb users have seen [1], though I must admit that 7.7/10 is an enviable average rating. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:42, Dec. 26, 2005
Delete, the article is in horrible shape. A more encyclopedic article can be written, but this content would be of no use in that. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:15, 26 December 2005 (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.