Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreams of a Playa

:{{la|Dreams of a Playa}} ([{{fullurl:Dreams of a Playa|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreams of a Playa}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non notable book, fails WP:BK. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, book doesn't appear to exist. Essentially a vanity article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Non Deletion, the article does not appear to be for vanity, but rather appears as an ongoing project that could perhaps produce relevant information in the future

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.244.200 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment appears to be WP:SPA. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't keep the article on the simple basis that "it could become important". If it becomes relevant in the future, which I doubt, then the article can be recreated. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete as either made up or utterly non-notable. No sources cited and there isn't a single mention of this book on Google. In a belated attempt to claim some sort of notability, a user has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreams_of_a_Playa&diff=305049731&oldid=305045558 added] some claims of notability. However, if true these claims would make the book one of the best-selling of all time and the author one of the richest people on the planet. The "picture" of the book included at the top of the article is taken from the book article, as shown by the fact that the book in the picture is written in German. This book has no claim to a Wikipedia article whatsoever. Hut 8.5 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've changed my mind. Now it's a blatant hoax, so it is eligible for Speedy deletion. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I reverted the edits that claimed that the book is widely popular (over 1 billion sold copies) because they are vandalism and obvious misinformation. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - No such book seems to be mentioned anywhere but on wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) postscript Nate Rosen is a character in a series of novels by Ronald Levitsky - who doesn't have an entry on here - and all the other references to Nate Rosen are on non-reliable sites. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:MADEUP. Possible G3 speedy. (When I first saw the title, I assumed it had something to do with a dry lake.) Deor (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• "You have got to be kidding me" Delete. "...much to the excitement of every male on planet earth." How come I wasn't excited - or even told? Also notice the lack of apostrophes and other tiny (but big) grammar errors. I find it hard to believe the person who wrote this article passed English class, let alone a book that is supposedly the world's best selling book ever. Xenon54 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Destroy. I agree on the speedy G3. — QuantumEleven 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete in the strongest possible strong terms strongly expressed. Clearly a WP:HOAX. ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo, you guys need to chill out. This is a valid book. I think you guy's are just jealous of Nate Rosen's ability to pick up chicks. - Ben Pollay

i agree, i mean what is up with this? just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean its not incredibly popular in sebastopol - Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielman7 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are joking, right? Don't do that. See WP:SNOWBALL. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::You are digging the article's grave right now by making more outlandish claims. These claims (plus the grammar mistakes you keep making that no self-respecting writer would ever make) only reinforce the fact that this book exists only in the minds of a few bored teenagers. Please, give it up. Xenon54 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• " Digging a grave, huh? Nice metaphorical language, but it really doesn't have any use in a forum like this. But that's ok, you can do what you like. Anyways,while a true editor might correct every error in a writer's piece of work, that writer doesn't care at all what's wrong or right, because either way, only an idiot wouldn't be able to comprehend what's written. How can thoughtless users on Wikipedia try and stopper the fledgling, blossoming minds of a few young adults? It's just not right. Especially when the article, which supposedly "must be destroyed immeadiately" pledges no harm towards the website. In fact, it probably helps people to learn more about Nate Rosen. You guys are digging your own graves.. *Please, give it up -- preceding unsigned comment left by 67.160.244.200 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The question isn't whether the article is harming Wikipedia - the question is whether it is notable. Perhaps in the future, this will become a world-wide highly regarded, important piece of work, but at the moment it is not notable, and by that criteria, an article about it does not belong on Wikipedia. Thoughtless users on wikipedia are not trying to stop the blossoming minds of anyone - however, we have criteria for inclusion on wikipedia which do not include "Allowing blossoming minds to have a forum" - there are more appropriate places for this, such as blogs and the like. While the book is unpublished, and obviously has not received reviews and commentary from reliable sources, it remains unnotable from the point of view of wikipedia's criteria - this is not to belittle the work of the young adults working on it, this is just the policy followed here. My suggestion is to keep working on it, get it published, get into the NY Times (or London Times, or other world-reknown paper or website) best seller list - then no one will say it is not notable... but it is not notable yet. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Snow delete. No point dragging this on. WP:N, WP:MADEUP (as demonstrated by the "blossoming minds" quote). Wikipedia is not the place for developing the "fledgling, blossoming minds of a few young adults". There are plenty of forums and blogs out there for that. Tim Song (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• But The authors are attempting to ciculate the rough draft among the book for peer review throughout their high school. Wikipedia, I'm sure, would be more than willing to allow the passage of information for scholarly review''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.244.200 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not the place for such things - when (or if) it becomes notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines for notability it would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I would say that at the moment it does not meet the criteria required for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:51, 1 August 2009 (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.