Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TextbookRush

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TextbookRush

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

declined speedy. Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. Looks like an advert LibStar (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and when the biggest section in your promotional article is about controversy, something's wrong. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it sounds like PR material and is a spam page. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (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.