Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery from Cults
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Recovery from Cults
Not a notable book. As an indication, this book has only three reviews by customers on Amazon USA. Andries 17:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all non-vanity-press books, and any moderately successful vanity press books too. Kappa 22:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete the mind boggles at regarding all such books as inherently notable. PatGallacher 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about notability. Kappa 01:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If that is Kappa's argument, that this is not a test of notability, I think this confirms the case for deletion. PatGallacher 22:26, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of a 'notability' criterion? Kappa 00:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think the concept of notability is basic to the Wikipedia project. See the FAQ and some other places on Wikipedia. This confirms my support for deletion. PatGallacher 07:48, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
- Well the Wikipedia:FAQ doesn't mention it, and WP is quite big so I'm not going to look through the whole thing for evidence that it's "basic to the wikipedia project". I know that some people think that, but if no explanation is provided, I can't challenge that assertion. Kappa 09:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think the concept of notability is basic to the Wikipedia project. See the FAQ and some other places on Wikipedia. This confirms my support for deletion. PatGallacher 07:48, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of a 'notability' criterion? Kappa 00:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If that is Kappa's argument, that this is not a test of notability, I think this confirms the case for deletion. PatGallacher 22:26, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about notability. Kappa 01:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this just passes the notability test for me. Expand. Megan1967 00:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- May I ask what constitutes your test? The author
and publisher are redlinksis a redlink (it does have what I believe is a prominent publisher, W. W. Norton), and there is no assertion that the book has been a commercial or critical success (or failure), or that it is at all controversial or significant. It'd be nice to see a reason to keep this, other than that it was published. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)- Amazon sales rank under 250,000. Megan1967 07:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- May I ask what constitutes your test? The author
- Keep. As near as anyone can figure, a book with an Amazon sales rank around 200,000 is selling ~2 copies per week from Amazon. If it were a new book, this would be dismal, but for a book that is 10 years old, it's not that bad. This book appears to possess at least minimal notability. Shimmin 00:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.