Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eucalyptus Goth

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. J04n(talk page) 14:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus Goth

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

Could have been speedy A7, but there are some sources in the article which IMO do not create notability but also should not be discarded. The author of the book has no Wikipedia article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, this appears to be an attempt to gain coverage for an unnotable book. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Essentially self promotion. Kb.au (talk) 10:00, 21 December 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.