Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mode One

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) 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mode One

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

Self-published book lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. Written by AfD'd author. Appears to fail WP:BK ttonyb1 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the book is self-published, but the book is the basis for a class, Dating for 21st Century Singles, at the regional campus of a major university (Indiana University). The book was also featured on a national television morning talk show, The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. This book was even featured in an international newspaper, Prensa Libre Chicago Smooth talk 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - article fails to show notability. request speedy deletion because this user created this article tendentiously after another Alan Roger Currie was deleted twice, and he recreated it, ignoring about 15 separate attempts to explain notability. I also suggest a block for disruptive behavior. The article creator insists on recreating/sneaking this unnotable author into wikipedia however he can, even after it's been explained countless times why this is not acceptable. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither source is reflected in the article, and it's not clear how much they would help in any case. The Prensa Libre article appears to have been an overview of the "seduction community" (at least per the brief discussion found here) rather than coverage of the book itself; the Mike & Juliet coverage appears to have been along the same lines (YouTube here, for those wishing to form their own judgment) and the book itself is mentioned only in passing. JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BK. This book has clearly not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." — Satori Son 19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are significant published reviews of the book itself to be found, which does not seem to be the case. There may or may not be material to support an article on the author, but, as he has done other work, an article there is more likely than here. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 17 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.