Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failing Man

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 Snow close. The consensus here seems to be pretty clear that this book doesn't pass notability guidelines. Given that this is the second time the article has been created in a short period of time, I'm going to WP:SALT as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Man[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. I cannot find significant discussion of this book in reliable sources. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously fails WP:NBOOK, WP:NPOV ProtossPylon 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:NBOOK, no coverage in any Google-searchable sources. Latest additions to the page show that it's a self-published work, and the reviews appear to be personal correspondence from the author's friends. I don't think it meets criterion A11 for speedy deletion, but I certainly don't think it warrants an article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C.Fred (talk) nailed it with the most recent edits appearing to be reviews of personal friends of the author of the book/article. Completely unreferenced, and does not even attempt to establish WP:NBOOK. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:37, 10 January 2014 (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.