| Revision as of 18:46, 22 November 2019 editDream Focus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,007 edits →Michael Jackson's Dangerous LiaisonsTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:36, 23 November 2019 edit undoCoolabahapple (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users84,534 edits afd response, not one source but two.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Comment'''. The book has been reviewed in the academic journals and , which are reliable sources and satisfy ]. ] (]) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. The book has been reviewed in the academic journals and , which are reliable sources and satisfy ]. ] (]) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :: One source still doesn't make it notable. An academic journal doesn't neccesarily speak for the book's legitimacy. ] clearly speaks to this. There shouldn't be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to this book. ] (]) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC) | :: One source still doesn't make it notable. An academic journal doesn't neccesarily speak for the book's legitimacy. ] clearly speaks to this. There shouldn't be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to this book. ] (]) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :::um, sorry, "one source"? {{u|MarkZusab}} lists two above, reviews by '']'', and '']'', so with these, technically (ie. "multiple") it meets ]. ] (]) 01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Redirect'''. There is no reason to have an article about this. Odd they didn't sue them for slander/libel to stop it from being published. ] 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) | *'''Redirect'''. There is no reason to have an article about this. Odd they didn't sue them for slander/libel to stop it from being published. ] 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:36, 23 November 2019
Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons (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:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This book does not meet the basic requirements of Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). Same information about this book available on its author's page Tom O'Carroll#Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons. There are also no reliable sources, per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, that backs the content of this book. Thus delete . TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to author page. Apparently no legitimate publications dared to review this book given its revolting author. —Мандичка 😜 04:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. The book has been reviewed in the academic journals Archives of Sexual Behavior and Sexualities, which are reliable sources and satisfy WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- One source still doesn't make it notable. An academic journal doesn't neccesarily speak for the book's legitimacy. WP:NBOOK clearly speaks to this. There shouldn't be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to this book. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- um, sorry, "one source"? MarkZusab lists two above, reviews by Archives of Sexual Behavior, and Sexualities, so with these, technically (ie. "multiple") it meets WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- One source still doesn't make it notable. An academic journal doesn't neccesarily speak for the book's legitimacy. WP:NBOOK clearly speaks to this. There shouldn't be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to this book. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect. There is no reason to have an article about this. Odd they didn't sue them for slander/libel to stop it from being published. Dream Focus 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)