Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druid: A Promised Land

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Druid: A Promised Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable self published book WuhWuzDat 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I wish I could vote keep, but I simply can't find any information on it. Originator of article is WP:SPA, and possiblethe author of the book. The content is an exact copy of [1]. Are official summaries of books counted as copy vio? Summary notes indicate that because the book is for sale, it must be notible. However, that is not the case for Wikipedia. I have been unable to find a single review for this book by any WP:RS. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Turlo. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent copyvio, but non-notable anyway. Vanity-press or equivalent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The plot is a copyvio and I have removed it. There are no sources to establish this as a notable work. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (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.