Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abctales (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abctales

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

This has actually (1) not substantially improved since starting in August 2008 but (2) also has not actually substantially improve since the 1st AfD by DGG in January 2013, that AfD itself was kept because of a few links listed but that's all they were, a few links and quote "paragraphs", nothing substantial and my own searches have found this also. This has also not improved since Drmies tagged and protected three years ago (note he deleted his own 2nd AfD). The first two sources, The Argus and Spiegel.de mention them a few times but it's still questionably borderline at best. I should note I still confirm my original PROD: "Listed sources are not actual substantial coverage sources and their own links are also noticeably listed, my searches also found nothing convincingly better to suggest this can be improved. The best source listed, The Telegraph, is only a mere paragraph about the website listed along with several other websites". SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister, I think I reverted after Twinkle informed me that mine was the second AfD, and followed the links in the first AfD. I'm mildly for keeping this. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article for a site devoted to self-promotion -- "Read one of the 117,522 stories from our 19,199 authors" DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:50, 10 July 2016 (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.