Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial Stability for the Disabled

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. Davewild (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Stability for the Disabled

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

Self-published book with little external citation and no independent sources found. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. No independent references. It seems like a typical "self-help" book. Also it was created by a single purpose account ("K a t e l e m k e") who also has another account ("Katealemke") and both only work on promotional articles about the author Austin Mardon. Elgatodegato (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin_Mardon#Bibliography. Like his other book, I can't find anything to show that this work would pass notability guidelines. Since one of the authors has an article then this can just redirect to his bibliography, which now includes this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I'm going to block one of the two accounts since it looks to be the same person operating under two accounts with nothing to show exactly why they're doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are more- I'll open an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources. Not inclined to redirect to the bio article as I'm not convinced that meets notability either. Maralia (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google brings up nothing. Book appears to have regional relevence only.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 14 May 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.