Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Unbreakable Bond

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. Sandstein 08:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Unbreakable Bond

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

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

An Unbreakable Bond is an article about a book. The original author of the article is clearly self-identified as the author of the book, so there is a big conflict of interests. The article does not address the notability of the book at all. It simply provides a plot synopsis. The referencing mainly covers for the factual events that the book is based on. It does seem to have a little local news coverage but this does not seem sufficient. Prod was removed by an user who I suspect to be an alternative account of the original author and who has also written an (auto)biography of him at Pat Farabaugh.

Pat Farabaugh is a biography of the author. I my took BLPPROD off that myself as references were added. However, even with the references, I don't see notability here and, unless I am mistaken, the same COI issues apply. DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obvious case of WP:ADMASQ self-promotion by a new, inexperienced editor (and his equally obvious sockpuppet). Pax 22:46, 5 April 2015 (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.