Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anvil of God: A Spiritual Reformation

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 Consensus was to delete Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Anvil of God: A Spiritual Reformation[edit]

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

This is an article about a self-published book with no media attention that fails WP:N and WP:BK. Prod removed by creator. Them From Space 02:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no indication of notability given in article (no refs, no info in body of article to point to notability, such as a notable publisher, etc).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "No indication of notability in article" is only relevant to articles that fall within the A7 Speedy Deletion criterion, which this article (about a book) does not. If we're not talking A7 then you're obliged to do your own searches to establish not whether the article establishes notability, but whether it could. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha, i think i knew that but forgot it. ive stricken my vote until i do some research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did my research. google books: nada. google: nada, except our article and a listing at amazon.com. no prejudice against recreation if this self published book (or the author) achieve notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this self-published book. (One reading of the "reception" section of the article suggests that the entire criticial reception has consisted of personal comments sent directly to the author.) I've left the article in its current state for the purposes of discussion but I note that were it to be kept the majority of it would need to be cut as being essay-like in layout and fundamentally unencyclopedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2010 (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.