Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Potty and the Pet Rock

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 keep. WjBscribe 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Potty and the Pet Rock[edit]

This was "published" last year by WingSpan Press. According to their website, WingSpan offers a variety of self-publishing options. No references for the article (other than the page's official website). Zero notability. I have some WP:COI concerns as well. janejellyroll 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Vote" withdrawn based on Edison and DGG's points. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepIt gets 15,800 Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors. The book is in the top 85,000 titles sold on Amazon.com, somewhat higher in sales (but lower in Google hits) than a similar parody "Bored of the Rings" which also has an article in Wikipedia. I would like to see published reviews in addition to the numerous highly favorable fansite reviews. Edison 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep It is possible , after all, to self-publish a book that becomes notable. doesn't happen often, but this seems to be an example.DGG 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison and DGG. John Vandenberg 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. --soum (0_o) 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable enough parody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Edison --St.daniel ^talk 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. It may seem like nonsesne but seems notable enough to deserve an article. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:27, 22 April 2007 (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.