Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God in the Pits

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. W.marsh 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God in the Pits and Mark Andrew Ritchie

non-notable, biased and borderline non-sensical frymaster 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I have added the author, Mark Andrew Ritchie, to this AfD, as a vanity-press author. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity press book per prod [1]. Writer Mark Andrew Ritchie is currently up for prod as well, and if deprodded, should be added to this AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not entirely sure of what to think, according to the God in the Pits Website, there are some pretty notable reviews[2]. But, naturally, there is no sourcing. The God in the Pits article is also a complete mess, and unless there is someone whom can supply some info, it probably should go down into the pits. I know Amazon doesn't really count, but it appears somewhat notable there. Personally, I believe this article should be extinguished if nothing else is brought up to prove notability. Yanksox ^(talk) 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity press advert blurb. WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete God in the Pits, for reasons cited above. Neutral on Mark Andrew Ritchie (his book Spirit of the Yanomamo received a smidgen of scholarly attention back in 2000 or 2001, but I'm not at all certain that means that he's article worthy. Will let wiser heads than mine decide.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdmessenger (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. Per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I am neutral as to whether it stays or goes, but I have replaced the tangential material about banned books that was at God in the Pits with an actual stub. (Thank you, Amazon, for providing pictures of the back covers! :-) ) The book did, apparently, get noticed by Forbes, Barrons and the Economist, if anyone wants to go grovelling through archives for the reviews. FreplySpang 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Coredesat 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Looked on Forbes.com, Barrons.com, and Economist.com. Couldn't find anything in the first two. The Economist gives it a two-sentence mention in a longer article about books on Enron, calling it the "most curious" of the hundreds of books on the topic. At first glance I'm leaning toward deletion, but if the Forbes and Barrons references turn up and are, unlike The Economist, proper book reviews, I think it would squeak in. --William Pietri 23:57, 22 June 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.