Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Biography of Jesus

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Biography of Jesus

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

Appears to fail all criteria of WP:BKCRIT. Google Books hits don't seem to offer independent, reliable coverage, while Google News and News archives turn up nothing. (I used the search term "A Biography of Jesus" Tom Cowley.) I am also nominating another book by Cowley:

It also appears to fail all of the above-mentioned criteria. Google Books, News, and News archives searches for "Remember The Heart of The Bible" tom cowley turn up nothing. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unsourced, not notable. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both articles lack sources of any kind; searching online yielded nothing that could be used to give notability. Unless sources can be provided that satisfy WP:BKCRIT, neither are suitable as Wikipedia articles. - Sudo Ghost 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability when looking for sources. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These articles are unsourced and do not clearly explain the notability of these books. Furthermore, one of the books has not even been published yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No citations, reviews, or news coverage. Not notable. -- 202.124.73.78 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source: http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Jesus-Simple-Lessons-Life/dp/1612611451/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341488186&sr=8-1&keywords=a+biography+of+Jesus. It took me about 1 second to find that, whoever searched for that and couldn't find it shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrwiki (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Clrwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not an independent source: it's just Amazon selling the book. It doesn't contribute to notability in the least. -- 202.124.74.140 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I concur completely with 202. Amazon doesn't qualify as an independent, reliable source because it has a vested interest in the book, as it's trying to sell it. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would certainly support keeping a book of this title. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And besides WP:ILIKEIT, on what policy do you base your !vote? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't get to inherit its notability from its subject, Jesus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are the usual re-tellings of the life of Jesus, two of the many, neither of which book is notable. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2012 (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.