Subject not sufficiently notable: Does not meet [[WP:CREATIVE]], I have searched for additional sources but have not been able to improve upon them. Sources listed are mostly unreliable or self published. Subjects only real claim to notability is as the author of ”Unmarketable: Brandalism, Copyfighting, Mocketing and the Erosion of Integrity”
which is a book I can find precious little mention of, in reliable sources.Ok, so I have now found some RS for the book, i’ll leave the nomination up for the moment as I still don’t believe [[WP:CREATIVE]] has been met.
And I mildly replied…
Apparently the ANONYMOUS SEXIST IMBECILE who started this bullshit didn’t notice links to reviews of “book I can find precious little mention of” in the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian (UK), and Forbes, and if this ANONYMOUS SEXIST IMBECILE can’t even “find” links in national and international “reliable sources” which are staring him, her, or IT in the face right out of the article which he, she or IT is “reviewing,” then maybe he, she, or IT should take a little break from VANDALIZING ARTICLES ABOUT WOMEN, learn how to READ, and stop posting LIES on Wikipedia! ” Sources listed are mostly unreliable or self published.” That’s a LIE! Is the Los Angeles Times “self-published or unreliable?” No it isn’t, LIAR! Is the Guardian “self-published or unreliable?” No, it isn’t, LIAR! And likewise with the claim that this book is Anne Elizabeth Moore’s “only real claim to notability.” This ANONYMOUS SEXIST IMBECILE and his PARTNER (Tbennert) first removed a whole string of references to PUNK PLANET, the zine which Anne Elizabeth Moore edited and published, and which is “notable” enough to merit its own Wikipedia entry, and then claimed that Unmarketable is her “only real claim to notability!” BULLSHIT!