Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee's Big Nuts

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 speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion G7 FASTILY 00:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dee's Big Nuts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I PRODed this page because its subject does not appear to be notable. The page's only reference is a self-published source, and it does not seem like there are any reliable sources to use for this page. The page creator removed the PROD tag, however it was not explained why, and my concerns were not addressed. So it goes to AfD. EDM fan 2 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, no primary sources available and does not meet WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Garnarblarnar (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TikTok meme with no indication of actual notability; fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. DanCherek (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references other than a Google Books listing. I note one of the book data sources listed in the Google Books help pages is "Web sites like Wikipedia". Nobody else seems to be paying attention to it as notable. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No coverage in media outside of YouTube and TikTok, where the views on the supposedly 'viral' readings don't even seem that large to me? Anyway, fails both GNG and NBOOKS. — Ghost River 00:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists and can be purchased, but neither of those things establish how it passes notability guidelines. There are no sources out there to establish notability. I think that this could likely be WP:SNOW closed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On first inspection, looks like a joke page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 15:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I would have probably tagged as G3.

It's not a hoax, as this does seem to exist although the book does seem to be written as just a big joke. It's just decidedly non-notable. As far as vandalism goes, it's not exactly obvious vandalism, although I do think that it was written to be more funny than encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately. If there was any doubt that the article for this completely un-notable book was created simply to be funny, simply take a look at how the creator of the page, @Poopykibble:, wrote up for the plot. Does this seem like it is intended to convey encyclopedic information? Cpotisch (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree the intent in creating this article was clearly vandalistic. It is never justified to include the full text of a book in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, though, that Wikipedia does not shy away from including spoilers. _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally no chance that this results in a consensus to keep the article . Can we change this to a speedy deletion or just close the discussion even though it hasn't been the full 7 days? We're dealing with pure spam. Cpotisch (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - delete immediately _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this page for speedy deletion under G6 (XfD) because it appears that there's a consensus to delete the page. I didn't want to tag the page for deletion as vandalism as I was assuming good faith due to it appearing like an article in development, but I also felt that the page was a bit unencyclopedic. EDM fan 2 (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admit I made the page as a joke. Besides the page is useless now since the storyline section got deleted. I apologize for creating a joke page. Poopykibble (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2022 (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.