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. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac:187[edit]

Tupac:187 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non-notable per WP:BOOK, no independent reviews found, possible advertising Deunanknute (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any reliable sources for this book and I think that the author's page (and the page for his film) could probably be deleted as well via AfD. This book just doesn't seem to be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to have any coverage at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2015 (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.