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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into WordPress[edit]

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

Not notable, seems like advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofish (talk • contribs) 00:01, 27 April 2011

Delete. The current version of the article is a serious advertisement (written in the second person), but after a good-faith Gsearch for the book, I couldn't find any significant coverage. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. CycloneGU (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sadads (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but why? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seriously, this article is nothing more than an advertisement. WP:ADVERT applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2011 (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.