Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible

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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Hamilton (author)

Another non-notable book in a growing walled garden of self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. This book has received reviews from publications including Library Journal, Resource Magazine, Publishers Weekly, Bristol Post, and The Times (all cited in the article). This meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1. MarkZusab (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is not self-promotion, as it was not created and has not been edited by the subject of the article or anyone with a personal connection to the author of the book. This article also does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a walled garden. (See Wikipedia:Walled garden and WP:SELFPROMOTE). MarkZusab (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added book reviews from the Bristol Post and The Times. Passes WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, another waste of time for afd editors of a notable book that is neither part of a walled garden nor of self-promotion, meets WP:NBOOK with numerous reviews in reliable sources that are listed in the article, a perfunctory WP:BEFORE would have found these. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A review by The Times is good enough for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coolabhapple is exactly correct that this is the sort of nomination that a BEFORE should avoid. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NBOOK (The Times, among other sources) and above --DannyS712 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough said. --Doncram (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (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.