- 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. ✗ plicit 23:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nine from Aberdeen
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nine from Aberdeen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has references.. but none of the secondary sources are about the book? The second paragraph ("Nine From Aberdeen also includes many rare photos from private and government collections, as well as charts and diagrams. The hardcover edition features a dust-jacket cover modeled on..") sounds very promotional. There's a lot of text and maybe some of it could be used in other articles, but this article doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I only just noticed the article was created by User:J Leatherwood and the book was written by Jeffrey M. Leatherwood.. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- The most in-depth coverage I could find was [1] in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this book was really covered anywhere or in enough depth to be seen as notable. It probably doesn't help that it was put out by a publisher that some would consider to be predatory, as any that might be interested in the subject would likely not want to attach their name to such a controversial publisher even via a review. That's an aside, though. Whatever the reasons for there not being coverage enough to establish NBOOK is met, this book is not notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since this looks like it was created by the author, I just want to note that this isn't anything about the book - the publisher being controversial or the lack of reviews doesn't mean that the book is bad, just that it doesn't pass the current guidelines for book notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing to establish notability of the book. And article is almost entirely a summary of content. Btw. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ✗ plicit 23:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nine from Aberdeen
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nine from Aberdeen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has references.. but none of the secondary sources are about the book? The second paragraph ("Nine From Aberdeen also includes many rare photos from private and government collections, as well as charts and diagrams. The hardcover edition features a dust-jacket cover modeled on..") sounds very promotional. There's a lot of text and maybe some of it could be used in other articles, but this article doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I only just noticed the article was created by User:J Leatherwood and the book was written by Jeffrey M. Leatherwood.. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- The most in-depth coverage I could find was [1] in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this book was really covered anywhere or in enough depth to be seen as notable. It probably doesn't help that it was put out by a publisher that some would consider to be predatory, as any that might be interested in the subject would likely not want to attach their name to such a controversial publisher even via a review. That's an aside, though. Whatever the reasons for there not being coverage enough to establish NBOOK is met, this book is not notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since this looks like it was created by the author, I just want to note that this isn't anything about the book - the publisher being controversial or the lack of reviews doesn't mean that the book is bad, just that it doesn't pass the current guidelines for book notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing to establish notability of the book. And article is almost entirely a summary of content. Btw. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.