Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mark Tom and Travis story

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 Speedy Deleted G4 - See old AFD. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Tom and Travis story[edit]

A promised book about a band that does manage to have a WP article. Maybe just a hoax, maybe a crystal balls-up; even if it turns out to be real, of no obvious significance. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~No band article? Blink 182 is was an established band that has an own article.~~ Sorry, I read "that does not manage to have..." Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book itself is not notable. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh: I didn't notice that "The Mark Tom and Travis Story" (note uppercase "S" for "Story") had already been zapped by AfD. Or that our author has been warned that if he recreates articles such as "The mark tom and travis story" (note modest lack of capitals), he'll be in trouble. But let this (second) AfD run a little time: the very persistent author will then have an opportunity to make his case (if any). We could also have a look at Tales from beneath your mom, sourced to an Amazon sales page that incidentally says Amazon.com Sales Rank: #224,904 in Books. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author of this article has had every chance to add reliable third-party sources to make his case for notability (something I have been unable to do). Instead of helping other editors out, he continued to delete the tags and templates without explanation, thinking the problem will just go away. I hasn't. I suspect that the sources within the article are the only ones available. If so, this subject is clearly not notable. J Readings (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated the page for speedy already before coming here. Crap like this should be deleted on sight. It is no more than an advert for an unpublished book. The author has been warned numerous times about creating such articles, but just ignores it. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this subject's title be salted to avoid further recreations of the same article over and over again. It seems that the article's creator just doesn't understand the point. J Readings (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How do you do that though? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2008 (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.