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. czar 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Self-promotional article, labelled as such for 7 years, no real prospect for improvement. CatfishJim and the soapdish 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: No notable coverage.
TheMagikCow (
talk) 19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as although he's held in over 2,000 libraries with a particular book high of 653, I found nothing else otherwise convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:34, 11 February 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.