Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yilloslime (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 4 November 2007 (→Fovean chronicles: comment re: Fovean author's WP:COI and failure to demonstrate the notability of his book.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fovean chronicles

Fovean chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK and WP:WEB. I have searched for independant reviews and found none. The article appears to have been created by the books' author, and reads like an ad. Yilloslime (t) 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 9 ghits ("-wikipedia" used) with nothing coming close to a reliable source. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom. Article looks more like a promo. MrMurph101 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Self-published book by non-notable author. Google search revealed no reviews or non-wikipedia references to the book. Offered for sale on www.lulu.com , where it has received exactly one reader response.-Hal Raglan 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete - Yahoo search revealed discussions of the book on Sennadar.com , rpg.net http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=313469, dmoz.org and lulu.com. The call to delete the article is a vindictive effort by Yilloslime over the way the editting of the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy ]. Oddly, the Hal Raglan and Yilloslime editors appear with the exact same opinions and actions in both locations - 12:42, 4 November 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)

• Comment Fovean Author has a rather obvious conflict of interest here, and anyways none the links he brings up are sufficient to establish his book's notability according to WP's standards. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates