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. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Option by Derek Gunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article about a short story - fails WP:Notability (books). I apologise for what may seem like a process-wonking waste of time, but the article has been cut back so that the previous deletion reasons no longer apply, nor does G4, and (though greatly tempted) I do not want to do an IAR speedy. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~SPEEDY~~ Delete as deleted material. no notability...and this was just deleted! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the previous deletion was for copyvio and promotion, and this version is neither. It's conspicuously non-notable, but that's not a speedy reason. It's a bore to go through this, but if we're trying to to teach this newbie the rules we ought to play by them. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and trout the article creator - he/she needs to stop wasting our time with these articles or will end up blocked. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained notability and copyright and pointed them to WP:BK, WP:YFA and WP:WAF. Let's hope we don't get any more like this. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per Sue Rangell --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete but I am revising my reasoning. Fails; WP:GNG, WP:NRVE --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything that would show that this work has any notability outside of the author. I would suggest a link to the author's page, but that doesn't seem to exist at this point in time. As far as the original editor goes, I don't think that we should necessarily block him/her just yet. Give them one last chance to play by the rules. Some of the content they're adding does have some notability, as in the case of The Myth of the Latin Woman, although this short clearly doesn't. If they add any more articles that are deleted for being blatantly non-notable even after looking for sources, then banhammer them then.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeating my view from yesterday's AfD: "No evidence that the story meets the notability criteria, nor does its author". AllyD (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the very first time ever, I am wondering if we finally found a WP:IGNOREALLRULES situation. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IAR speedies are a slippery slope on which I am very reluctant to set foot. If I had IAR-speedied this, I would at the same time have speedied The Myth of the Latin Woman from the same user, which looked equally unpromising but has been saved (see AfD) by Heymann Standard research from Tokyogirl79). JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (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.