Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Dear Sweet Heart

: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. m.o.p 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[My Dear Sweet Heart]]=

{{ns:0|?}}

:{{la|My Dear Sweet Heart}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|My Dear Sweet Heart}})

Non-notable book self-published through lulu at £211.21 (claims to have sold 1067). Infobox claims publication by Oxford University Press and Bantam Books. Other than unreliable entry at openlibrary.com, I can find no evidence for this. Peridon (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Forgot to say this is a disputed prod. And I apologise to all for nominating this title on the 14th of February... Peridon (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Highly probable hoax. None of the infobox information checks out, and clicking on the OCLC number (which submits a search to WorldCat) pulls up a record for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Dear_Sweet_Heart&oldid=413859764 This earlier revision] indicates a pretty bogus book cover. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

::The US ISBN in the infobox is also for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm also concerned about the varying numbers of pages - "2 (UK hardback)" and "489 (U.S. paperback)" - and the peculiar and excessive price at lulu. It is definitely listed at lulu but I won't try to put the link in - I get in trouble with bots when I try to link to lulu (they don't like her for some reason). Something of this title by an author of the name here is published at lulu - but at £221.21 for a 7 page pdf download, I can't see 1067 people buying it. (If they have, I'm in the wrong business. Lulu, here I come...) The Dewey code is same as da Vinci, but that's possible. And here's something interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avinash_Patra As the author of that article was blocked, I suspect the creator of this article to be a sock of that person. As the article was deleted and the author didn't comment in the AfD, I can't really take it to SPI, not knowing the original username. Peridon (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Comment: The original account is {{User|Avinashkrishnadasa}} and I have blocked the new account as an obvious sockpuppet. The author's article was deleted as a recreation of the deleted article referenced in the AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Copyvio? The coherent part of the article appears to be a copyvio of http://www.scribd.com/doc/39529551/The-Separation-of-Godhead and http://avinashmalhotra.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-separation-of-godhead/ both created Oct 2010. Text by the author of the book in question here, and claiming publication by OUP. I'd rather it get deleted at AfD than speedied - I've a feeling it may reappear and may need salting at some point. Peridon (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete hoax, joke, or something similar. A two-page hardback book? Come on. And claiming to share the ISBN number of the Da Vinci Code really gives it away. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Info A re-creation of the article about the author has just been deleted. And the creator of this article has been blocked... Peridon (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The book page is just dumb, even as hoaxes go, but the author page was at least actually funny, especially claims of having a "Doctorate in Litreture" [sic] from Oxford whilst clearly not being able to string a coherent sentence together. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm wondering where the text of the book comes from. It's not at all the same style as the opening of the article, but I can't trace it beyond the sources I've given above. It looks like one of those things you find in charity shops (or used to), which make you wonder who bought it and gave it away again, and who, if anyone, is going to buy it again. Usually written by Swami Mahesh Shri Krishnadevanagari Puran Das or a similar name. (I liked 'Litreture' and rather wish I'd kept a copy.) Peridon (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Yeah, it definitely has a "booklet handed out at the bus station" kind of feel to it. It's pretty tough to read, but not in the same style as the far duller gibberish by our hoaxer. I'm guessing it was just something copy-pasted in to fill out the article's length a bit. Too bad he didn't include the part where some guy becomes an author and poet by sucking on some other guy's toes. Yes, that's really in there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Info. Not to pile on ... ok, I'm piling on: article uses the wikiquotes template to point to non-existent [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/My_Dear_Sweet_Heart information on the title in Wikiquotes]. Come on down oh magical admin type species and put this article out of its misery. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't think it is a hoax, just a book that fails WP:NBOOK by a wide margin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:The book may actually exist, but the fact that the article is/was chock full of inaccurate and misleading information (fake publisher, fake number of pages, fake ISSN number, fake OCLC number) leads me to classify the article itself as a hoax. But I do get and accept your point; the failure of WP:NBOOK is just another reason to delete (and possibly salt). --Quartermaster (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: The author's article has now been deleted again as a recreation of a deleted article from the aforementioned AfD. I recommend to the closing admin that the article be salted since this author has a pattern of recreating deleted articles. It is obvious that the author is trying to promote themselves on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:43, 15 February 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.