Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The royal family book series

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The royal family book series[edit]

Totally non-notable. I would say it's probably a hoax, except that the other page started by this editor explains that Main Hall was written by a sixth-grader, so it could be for real, just not published outside of his sixth-grade class. Quuxplusone 07:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add the above article, the only other contribution by author Jeremy926 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to this AfD. Deprodded by author. Tubezone 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Full disclosure being that I'd prod'ed the article and was just in the process of listing it here when I lost power for a moment, so my thunder has been stolen :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that these are published books, or even books that actually exist. The title of the first one, "Fighting At the Risk of A Brother", gets no Google hits at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's see here. A sixth-grader (i.e., probably an 11-year-old) writes a series of books and wins a prize for the best book by a kid in his grade in his town. He is excited, and he or his family decide that he should write about the books on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, being the newest of newbies here, he is not familiar with our notability and deletion guidelines, so the new page gets prod'ed and then listed here on AfD the day it is created. Since the page is going to wind up being deleted, perhaps speedily so, this is bound to be disappointing to a younger person proud of his accomplishment. I would urge that we at least try to do it without saying there's "no evidence the books exist" or accusing the new editor of "vandalism" (it's not always apparent to a newcomer why "prod" tags can be deleted but AfD tags mustn't be). I recognize that the younger editors are subject to the same rules and guidelines and notability criteria as the rest of us, and this page shouldn't be kept, but there has to be a more humane way of dealing with this type of situation. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First thing, I don't see anything that's been said here that's particularly cruel, second, there's plenty of other places where this can be posted, WP is hardly the only web site on the internet, third, it's going to be deleted anyway, what's the diff if it's done now or later, fourth, if you allow exceptions for 11 year old kids, every hoaxster is going to suddenly become 11 years old and make a façade of being a little kid being cruelly persecuted by the heartless cabal, fifth, if one is going to take up creative writing, one might as well get the fear of rejection thing out of the way early, and last, is this the longest run-on sentence you've seen today, or what? Tubezone 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to criticize my fellow editors' writing styles, run-on or otherwise, so I'll just say that if that sentence had appeared in The Royal Family Book Series, it wouldn't have won first prize. :) Substantively, I was by no means opposing deletion, just suggesting a gentler explanation to a new and enthusiastic editor. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely nn. Deizio talk 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, either nn or a hoax. Note that the author, rather than participating in this discussion, has pulled AfD tags off The Royal Family Book Series 4 times. Tubezone 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and given the creator's history with this page, salt the earth. SkierRMH,09:23, 9 December 2006 (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.