Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dining Late with Claude La Badarian

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dining Late with Claude La Badarian[edit]

I've been following the William Monahan articles for a while now. They are ALL original research. This is the worst of those articles. Dining Late with Claude La Badarian is a non-notable fictional epistolary story. No evidence of notability outside the Manhattan Samurai/BillDeanCarter initiative. No independent, reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Delete promptly, Issue 12 exists (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Renomination: IAR, I've taken the step of changing the nomination to my name, even though I don't remember seeing it done before; my reasons are those given below by Bali ultimate. This is a very minor fictional work, that has never been commented on in any reliable source, and hardly noticed even by the fans of the author. It has been maintained as part of a elaborate structure by a sockpuppet farm which now needs to be re-examined. Monahan did write one notable screenplay, if not much else of significance.. Getting rid of this is a good place to start. DGG (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*cmt~~ *delete nom made by indef blocked sock of a banned user (the creator of the nominated page). So the nom should probably be nuked. However, I agree that this elaborate piece of garbage should also be deleted. No secondary coverage that establishes notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt reiterating delete. I've gone through this article and it has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability (there's a blog post praising it, and a passant mention in an inside joke sort of way in a gossip column, and that's it.) Fails all portions of notability guidelines, most relevantly fiction and book.
Question: Is there some way this work by an academy award-winning screenwriter and novelist be made encyclopdic? Or would a merge back to the William Monahan article overburden? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt well, is there any coverage to establish notability for this minor piece? There's already a short graph on this in the monahan article, which seems appropriate given it has never been covered or commented on (outside of one blog).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2009 (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.