Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyride to Infinity
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,462,126 in Books Brimba 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination - JNighthawk 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of multiple independent reviews. Kappa 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- For people voting with WP:BK, I don't see why we have to ignore a review like this one [1] Kappa 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite other reviews? -- Tim D 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another one in the article. Kappa 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see are two links to the author's web site and one to the review already mentioned. Just so people don't have to work too hard, how about just linking it here. -- Tim D 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops OK not independent. Probably should still opine "keep" on the basis that its a non-vanity book, but that's not too clear. Kappa 03:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not independent? Which part is not independent? Is the review not independent? Unfocused 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The one review appears independant, but it looks like there aren't any others. -- Tim D 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not independent? Which part is not independent? Is the review not independent? Unfocused 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops OK not independent. Probably should still opine "keep" on the basis that its a non-vanity book, but that's not too clear. Kappa 03:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see are two links to the author's web site and one to the review already mentioned. Just so people don't have to work too hard, how about just linking it here. -- Tim D 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another one in the article. Kappa 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Verifiable and written factually. Unfocused 01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability asserted at all. One review in a non-notable publication does not confirm importance. Fails WP:BK on all counts. -- Kicking222 02:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If no evidence of notability surfaces. Montco 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:BK. JoshuaZ 20:53, 6 November 2006 (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.