Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2150 AD


 * 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, in the light of the late found sources, it is found notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2150 AD

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced book by author that doesn't even have her own article. If the author doesn't have an article, why should the book? Also fails WP:N with no reliable sources. Closest thing to a source I could find was a review.(EDIT)Wiki software blocked it as a spam link. Not sure if it is, but I had to unlink it. If you want me to send you the link, leave me a message on my talk page. Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This could possibly speedied as WP:IAR in my opinion. The author is a red link, so why should the book have a page, indeed. Furthermore, the only source that could be found is a blacklisted hyperlink. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: No opinion, but I disagree that if there's no article on an author, there should be no article on a book. WP:BLP1E would apply, a book might be notable, whereas the author might not be, just because they wrote a notable book.  I hope we don't run around creating articles on every author that ever wrote a single notable book.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The book has apparently had multiple printings by a genuine publisher; nonetheless only 63 libraries hold it, according to worldCat. Checking to see what else the author has written, & reading the article more carefully, it appears she's the leader of what can best be described as a cult philosophy built around  the book. A few such people have been-- in my opinion unfortunately--very notable, so there is just a remote chance she might be notable, though I have so far found no real sources. The book certainly is not. I'd oppose turning this into an article on the person unless someone can find an actual RS. The only real time an author is not notable but a single book is would be a first book from someone who has published nothing else important; I don't think there will be many such--if the book is that important people write about the author also.  DGG (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the book was published by a major publisher and it's quite probable that it has some degree of notability. Google searches shouldn't be considered definitive for a book published in the 1970s. Everyking (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Also, if the author isn't notable (which she appears not to be), it's most unlikely the book is. Biruitorul Talk 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - for whats its worth...book is cited here. And here. And here.  And here. and there are numerous web hits, though most of them web logs.  As for the idea that the author doesn't have a WP article therefore the work is unnotable, that doesn't matter in the slightest, so I don't know why it is even being brought up.  However, even the author gets numerous hits on a broad search.  I have no idea who she is, nor am I particularly interested in the book, or the New Age, creepy cult, self help guru, what-have-you, material circulating around her, but apparently others are and this book seems to often be the attractant.  Clear keep, but the article needs to be properly cited. --Trippz (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources presented by Trippz seem good enough to establish notability to me. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Keep Sourcing is weaker than I'd like, but people are citing it so probably notable. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources found by Trippz appear to provide notability in my opinion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the information cited by Trippz; the article needs improvement but the notability is there. RFerreira (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2008 (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.