Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marienbad My Love

:{{la|Marienbad My Love}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Marienbad My Love}})

The eBook this article is based off of is complete nonsense, it's not worthy of an encyclopedic entry and since the claims regarding it being the worlds longest novel are completely unsubstantiated I don't think there is any need to keep this article . Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Not published by a real press, not reviewed, by a non-notable author, and even downloading the title made Firefox crash. That's a claim to something, but not to notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable as a work of art, if not literature. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding the article -- I just fixed a couple of dead links and added several new ones. Lots of content online. I could fill the entry with external links. Perhaps that alone makes it notable. User:Dhalgren195 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
• Fo shizzle? Is there any evidence of this notability, besides the author's own claims? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, I had totally forgotten about this article. i tried so hard to find refs, to show good faith. this was before i knew about what counts as notable, and before i knew about Twinkle (or i would have put it here). IF this book HAD gotten significant attention for its claim and size, then it could stay as a notable work regardless of its literary value. but i dont think it ever did get much attention. and since it was not printed, and has no sales records, we cannot show notability in those traditional areas for books. Basically, a failed Warholesque attempt at the shock of the new. Even notability as a famous failed work would count, but it didnt get that either. ps obviously computer generated in some fashion, which is why no one really was amazed by it. if this WAS even 10% the authors own words, that would have been interesting. Until this work becomes part of an AI research project, or similar text/meaning study, it doesnt deserve an article.(PS check out the article history and the inclusion of the full title, expanding the article to 40k!).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• It was me that deleted the title a couple of months back, I previously thought that just the title was unnecessary but when I came back too it I better understood wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is why its ended up here Alphaswitch91 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete not sure use of CSD G11 was all that daring. This is an experiment in word count and I can find no treatment of this as a serious work of writing. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2011 (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.