Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rules of Life

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. We get a variety of opinions, and two references were added during the nomination time, however, the opinions range from very weak keep to delete, with delete getting the last votes (i.e. voters who have seen the changes in the articles and were familiar with the previous arguments), and nobody argued the notability has beed demonstrated. The argument by DGG for me sums the whole discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Life[edit]

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

Created in 2010 but has no references, does not meet WP:NOTE or WP:VERIFY. Flat Out Let's discuss it 13:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. And let Richard Templar be the next Afd. He is a nobody too. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article claims the book is an international bestseller, which would make it notable if that can be substantiated. Meanwhile, I've added one cite, a review in an RS newspaper. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any evidence that the book is an international bestseller. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author's page. No need for standalone article, does not meet GNG or N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As weak a keep as they get - this technically passes a ghost of a whisper of WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmistakable clear delete--only 39 library copies according to worldcat. Libraries freely buy this sort of self-help book when they are of any importance at all. I agree that the author p. should probably go to afd also. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits. I don't think we can make a case for notability here. That said, the author's page is concerning as well, so I don't know if a merge would be appropriate either. WP:USUAL might apply to the author, but it is unlikely that a three-year-old self-help book will get additional notice or sourcing in the future. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:13, 20 June 2013 (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.