Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest of the Trinity

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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incest of the Trinity

Amazon sales rank below 1,900,000; about 5 Ghits for its listings on Amazon and Powell's, then about 700 unrelated porn sites. Nonnotable book. NawlinWiki 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crum375 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The author doesn't get Ghits either. Tyrenius 02:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable book--TBCTaLk?!? 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable book by non-notable author. --Coredesat talk 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:Vanity - article's creator is book's author. David L Rattigan 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable book. WilyD 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is for sale on Amazon. Are you defining non-notable as meaning "I personally don't care to read it?" Anytime you whip out the word non-notable then I think you should bother to offer a reason. george 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Amazon has books listed that have sold only a few copies, if that many, so the listing in itself is not a criterion. I believe we like to have about 10,000 copies sold, and for that the Amazon rating would have to be much higher than this book, which is 1.9M. If you look up the correlation charts, you will see that much better Amazon ratings are needed and that 1.9M translates into just a few copies sold. Of course any non-Amazon proof of notability would also be acceptable, but the Amazon rating is a good start. Crum375 00:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WilyD. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What's the policy on books here? If its listed for sale in Amazon then isn't that good enough? Wikipedia is characteristically vague on this point:

Although not the topic of this guideline, the question has been asked whether every book deserves a separate Wikipedia article. For example, not every book somewhere cited in a references section of a Wikipedia article will necessarily get a separate wikipedia article for itself. Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. On the other hand, if a Wikipedia page can only survive if a "(book)" qualifier, not needed for disambiguation, is added to the page name, this might indicate there is a problem with the notability, in Wikipedia context, of that book.

george 22:53, 27 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.