Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daredevil's Manual

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. Sources provided are indeed on the trivial side. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daredevil's Manual

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

I'm not finding references that convince me this book meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – Does not appear to meet WP:BKCRIT. After several source searches, I have only found~~ one short review: [1]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew my !vote above for the time being. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything either, although I did find a source for the author here. If more sources can be found then we could have an article for the author, although it'd need more than just the two sources listed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Books". Star-News. 2005-01-11. p. 4D. Retrieved 2015-03-09.
  The article notes:
2. Maniaty, Tony (2006-03-18). "Miscellany". The Australian.
  The article notes:
3. Swart, Genevieve (2006-04-30). "Humor - Books". Sun Herald.
  The review notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Daredevil's Manual to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says: Cunard (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above reviews from Cunard are reproduced in full. All are on the trivial side. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:29, 12 March 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.