Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anatomy of the Body of God

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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anatomy of the Body of God[edit]

Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,657,640 (or 2,319,877 for paperback). Was de-prodded for the reason of being a published book. However, WP:NOT a catalogue of all the books in the world. Merge and redirect to the author, Frater Achad (whose notability is dubious himself, IMHO). Sandstein 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, nomination retracted per Perfecto below. Sandstein 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable book --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Henrik 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was the deprodder of this article, and I still believe this article is worth keeping. WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, and the article provides information not included in Frater Achad. I'll admit it's not the most notable source; however, the article's not hurting anyone and provides helpful information to anyone researching the book. I wouldn't, however, strongly oppose merging and redirecting to Frater Achad as Sandstein recommended. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weakly, in truth, but count it as a full 1 vote). Not the best subject for an Amazon test; Achad aka Charles Stansfeld Jones has a lengthy enough article already. Samaritan 10:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as per above. Roodog2k 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- this didn't need to be brought to AfD. Jkelly 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charles Stansfeld Jones. I concur with Jkelly - this is an inappropriate AfD. WeniWidiWiki 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only because it's more likely to get expanded by an interested party if it has its own article. Including it with a one-sentence summary in the author's article discourages expansion - that's how it always seems to work. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete'. No encyclopedic value; per nom. C3H5N3O92010 01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...mostly per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s thought- I agree. I also offer an opinion that the suggestion that Frater Achad or his works are not notable is, frankly, ludicrous; if we delete them, we might as well delete the articles pertaining to Aleister Crowley and John Dee, which is equally silly action to contemplate here. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentaire As the article submitter I'd rather leave this nom alone, but let me just say this: AfD stands for "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for merging and redirecting". Merge proposals are to use the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} tags -- one of the reasons why is to invite discussion on the destination article, presumably among those who have a slight idea what the two topics are about.

Also, if the "merge and redirect" nomination wins, what is the closing admin to do? Add the merge tags? Execute the merge? Do we want the closing admin to create Talk:The Anatomy of the Body of God and recustomise {{oldafdfull}} to "This article was nominated for merging and redirecting on 19 March 2006. The result of the discussion was "merge and redirect"."??

Well, okay, guys, I'll move on and leave this nom alone. I have several new articles to create today. :) -- Perfecto 16:07, 23 March 2006 (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.