Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final Quest

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 merge to Rick Joyner. Best option for consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Quest[edit]

Unnotable book, which has been tagged as such for more than a year and the article was created on 28 November 2005. Lacks third-party sources. The only link is to the author's webpage. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books is notable because of controversy about the book. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, not sourcedTroyster87 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search for sources came up dry. No evidence of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is some controversy associated with the book, but it really is based more on the author's repeated claims of divine revelation. Since I didn't see reliable sources discussing this particular book, it seems that a merge to the author, Rick Joyner, is appropriate. Also, if you have the patience for it (and I don't), it is entirely possible that some of the privately hosted websites could be accepted as reliable sources over at WP:RS/N to expand the article(s). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After being solicited on my talk page rather judgmentally and aggressively I reiterate my previous position and the link provided only solidified my position. The sources only point out that the writer did a book tour with stops at Barnes & Nobles.Troyster87 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Troyster87's statement. A_Nobody (talk · contribs)'s posting was unhelpful and unnecessary. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not currently sourced, and I hate working on any book to begin with due to the amount of cruft to be waded through. Then there are my feelings about this one based on what research I did - so I shouldn't be the editor to work on this article. I see enough evidence of notice and significance that I believe we can and should have an article on the topic, and hope someone is able to write a decent one soon. GRBerry 22:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- This appears to be a comparatively harmless little article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles are not harmless because the information could be incorrect and the readers would then be misinformed. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of citations from reliable sources, delete. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (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.