Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Private

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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Private

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

A book that is pretty limited and has been tagged since 2010. I think a redirect to the persons page be the best. Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent English language sources to the extent it's a possible hoax... Roberticus talk 00:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment-dang so it took 8 years to find it? Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I just tagged it as a hoax. If it is isn't there a page where we put these on? Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some evidence to suggest that this exists, such as the Japanese Wikipedia listing the book and this Amazon page but then that's not exactly definitive. I'll try to see if I can find something that proves it beyond a doubt.

Yup, it exists. Here's the official publisher's page for the book. However there is still a very real issue of notability, so I'd favor a redirect to Aiko_Kayō#Photobooks as I can't really see where there is any coverage for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-ha okay thanks. I was thinking when someone said a possible hoax about how odd that be given how long the article has been around followed by "dang that be some odd record". Well still not notable. Wgolf (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2014 (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.