Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trusted Advocate

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 - non-notable self-promotion, clear consensus. KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Trusted Advocate

The Trusted Advocate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A couple of red-link "authors" paid a vanity press (iUniverse) to have this book printed and then came here to self-promote said book with a vanity article that fails WP:BOOK, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Single-purpose account, and WP:ADVERT. Article has contained spam links in the past and still contains one. Author was warned here [1] about spamming but continued to spam. Book title kicks up nothing on Google but self-generated sites, blogs, etc.--no reliable sources whatsoever. Clearly, these people think they can use Wikipedia as an advertising and spamming platform for their vanity press book. Let's get rid of it now. Qworty (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of reviews or other attention for this subsidized publication. Fails all of the WP:BK criteria. Deor (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Written by the book's author; I also can't find any independent reviews online. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete this blatent vanispamcruftisement Thinboy00 @029, i.e. 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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.