Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Powell-Thomas

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Powell-Thomas[edit]

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

feels like advertising ~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Matt's talk 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't look like advertising to me, but the only thing I can find online about either of the books is the fact that they are on sale. Nothing else mentions either the books or the author. Neither of the works appear to be notable, which implies failure of WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete. Like the editors above, I searched, found nothing except confirmation that the books exist. Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON in this writer's career, but do note that these are a children's book and a local interest history book, put out by publishers with which I am not familar. I suggest that the next editor who comes close discussion as delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON as noted by E.M.Gregory. This is a new author who has first published this year. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 33-page book released this year with no peer review or reliable sources is probably not cause for a Wikipedia page!Pupsbunch (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2017 (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.