- 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. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Junebug Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Chad Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shadow Dancer: The Life and Crimes of Geoffrey Marcus Lindman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These have been marked as hoaxes; they are not that, but they are all fictional elements in the works of Larry Mike Garmon, whose own article is at AfD here with notability in doubt. That article has been in Wikipedia since 2005, but on 10 August Lmgswain (talk · contribs), who from the initials presumably is, or is connected to, Mr Garmon, created a string of articles about his pen-name Edwin A. Dark, one of his books Shadows (novella), and these three articles about fictional elements in his books.
- The "Junebug Times" is a newspaper in the fictional town of Junebug;
- "Chad Chapman" is its editor and publisher; and
- "Shadow Dancer: The Life and Crimes of Geoffrey Marcus Lindman" is a fictional book by the fictional character Chad Chapman.
Whether or not Mr Garmon, his nom-de-plume or his book are notable, these fictional elements of his books certainly are not: see for instance this Google search which shows only WP and a mirror. Moreover, it seems Wikipedia is being used for a marketing campaign. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom, no independent refs to establish notability. --Muchness (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - there is no evidence for independent notability of each of these fictional elements. -- Whpq (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (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.