Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/A Rebel Life: Murder by the Rich


 * 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. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A Rebel Life: Murder by the Rich
Little indication of notability. A Wikipedia article on this book cites no secondary sources, and links to a single book review in a webzine that features offbeat "transgressive fiction". According to OpenLibrary, the publisher was a one-shot with no other titles. The book is also self-published through CreateSpace. Note: The original contributor, a single-purpose account here and at Wikipedia who self-identifies at Commons as the copyright holder, recently blanked all quotes from the page, but was reverted. — Ningauble 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom - interesting, but nevertheless not up to notability standards. ~ UDScott 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — though this material is nothing I have great interest in either keeping or removing of itself, and badly in need of a format cleanup, I generally prefer to preserve and expand information avaliable to people, and to not remove it without clear NEED to do so. I would MUCH rather reduce MANY of the crap rules and definitons and numerous assumptions that have accumulated here to stifle activity, which are increasingly evident and are quoted as if they were MANNA from heaven, than MOST of of the CRAP articles where people have genuinely attempted to participate. Even if what they have developed has little merit, and generates little interest from most of us, I believe they have far more merit than many of the rules that some people find convenient to use to exclude MUCH, and which I find extremely detrimental and thoroughly deplorable. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Keep I agree that this is not very good stuff, but it does seem to be notable, e.g. --Collingwood 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice if page were to be improved with secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (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.