Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Painting the Invisible Man
Appearance
- 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. -- Scott (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Painting the Invisible Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBOOK. No reliable secondary sources, no claims of notability. Rogermx (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, i have found a few refs, I'm not sure about their quality, so I'm not voting at this time. [1] [2]. Szzuk (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 06:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 06:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, WorldCat shows it being held by 5 libraries which probably reflects the lack of useable sources from a gsearch (including the reviews mentioned above), did find this from the Midwest Book Review but more is needed. ps. a redirect to the author, Rita Schiano may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I gave this a chance but I'm not seeing anything which would make me think this passes gng or nbook. I've just tagged the authors page with notability because it doesn't have any RS refs, hence delete rather than redirect. Szzuk (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (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.