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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana: The Evidence[edit]

Princess Diana: The Evidence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

6 months on from release, article fails to establish any mainstream WP:notability, or even comment, bar obviously book merchant websites and the fortean times review, which is less than flattering and implies the same lack of notability. Considering the recent inquest I would have thought there would been more interest in such a titled book, but it appears not. Hence, not worthy of an article, whose stub sized presence here judging by Google does more for the authors than for the wikipedia reader reaching it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There is reportedly a planned film adaptation, but the sources I can find on Google News Search and NewsUK don't allow us to say anything worthwhile about the book or the film – a few newspapers have reported the book's content, but without critical commentary. EALacey (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was planned for Spring 2006. I think it's safe to say it's either 'on hold' or dead. Like I said, given the recent inquest here in the UK, I would have thought if this was still in the pipeline, it would be all over the place. MickMacNee (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Article is a stub and should be tagged as such. Just because a book is poor or badly written doesn't mean that it's not notable. So I'm not so sure about the above nomination reasoning. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of some actual reviews from better sources or other evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sources establishing the notability of this book.-- danntm ^T _C 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no indication of pre-publication interest on the part of anyone but the author and publisher.Elan26 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
• Delete - there's no WP:N here. The ISBN "references" don't count as per WP:V. The review arguably does, but that single review isn't enough. Merenta (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2008 (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.