Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Light
- 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 of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic. How to judge this, eh? Not really a book, not for sale on Amazon.com, article says "is available from the following location" so as a web site? Alexa is 1.3 million, but per WP:WEB what we're actually looking for is mentions in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I couldn't find any. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. brenneman(t)(c) 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:41, Jan. 13, 2006
- Delete per nom. -- Krash 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability Ginar 21:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry for all the edits, still learning)
and the free download is here http://www.red-ice.net/michaelsharp/index.html as found on external link by following from webpage
Also found here http://planetstarz.com/mlt/
and I found it originally here http://www.naturalmuscle.net/ (left hand side menu). This is, interestingly enough, not a traditional "new age" or spiritual magazine (so evidence for notability outside of narrowly defined group)
and last edit I promise. List of Media appearances from author blog
http://www.michaelsharp.org/blog/?page_id=12
- Delete. Not everythign verifiable is encyclopedic. -R. fiend 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
That's right, but entry is arguably notable. original entry for deletion cited (nn) and verifiability as cause for deletion and evidence of notability and verifiability now provided. Is there some other valid reason for deletion that can be cited now?
I took the template for this article from [[1]] because it seems to me the two cases are comparable. Why one and not the other (honest question here, not trying to incite) Ginar 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stifle 01:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-- ok, admittadely I'm new at this but doesn't a counterargument need to be made here or will this be deleted "just because" and with no debate?
I believe I've read the relevant policies and it would seem to me this is not a candidate for deletion. It is verifiable, and is adhering to NPOV (and if its not it can be easily edited). It is arguably important to a "reasonable" number of people (notability) and as Jimmy_Wales points out, fame or importance are not relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No (just NPOV and relevance) (i understand this is an issue of debate)
Since notability was cited as a reason to delete, and since notability can be shown, I'd like to see some specific comment on why the article remains "nn" despite evidence to the contrary.
quoting from Wikipedia:notability
Lack of notability is often designated by the phrase "non-notable" or the abbreviation "nn". Whenever using the term or its abbreviation, please explain briefly why you consider the subject to be not notable (e.g. "has written a book but it was never published
peeps, you might find this discussion relevant as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Sharp Ginar 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete never mind, changed my mind after doing someother stuff. info here is better of merged with main biography. somebody else can add separate entry down the road Ginar 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete apparently self-published book (or at least not published and distributed by a mainstream press). Verifiability concerns also noted per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 14:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. See also: image:Bol cover large.jpg, an image of this book's cover uploaded by Ginar, where he says: This file is released into the Public Domain by the Author and the Publisher whom I represent. --kingboyk 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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.