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. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NC Media Law Handbook[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a book, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NBOOK is that it exists. The only two references here are a copy of the book in PDF format, and the website of the organization that published it -- which makes them both primary sources that cannot carry notability. As always, a book does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be nominally verified by metareferencing it to itself; a book needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media which are independent of its own publisher's self-promotion efforts, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable online-only state legal guidebook regarding a niche practice area; I found no independent secondary sources, and none likely exist outside my search capabilities (or ever will, because no one outside a relative handful of North Carolinians will ever have use for it, and even fewer will have any reason to write about it). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2017 (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.