Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable book by a barely-notable author. Was only a bestseller on a very special-interest index. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is redundant because it contains information which is already present on the author's page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments Two procedural errors: first, evangelical Christians are not a very special interest; and second, your nomination is your delete vote, so you need not give another vote immediately after the nomination statement. No comment on whether deletion be warranted or not.  Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have converted my vote to a comment, accordingly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I found a few articles and a review or two about the book. It appears to have won an award (although I'm unsure of how prestigious it is) and inspired a song. On a side note, I agree with Nyttend that Christian literature (fiction or non-fiction) isn't all that unknown of a field and this book actually hit many bestselling lists, such as the NYT and USA Today. Even if it's "just" the advice field, that's still quite an accomplishment in itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep In response to Salim's original reasons as to why this should be deleted, I disagree. As tokyogirl79 said, this book has hit multiple best selling lists, debunking your argument that it is a "non-notable book" (Which I'm not sure is a legitimate reason to delete an article anyway). He has also written 2 other books, Erasing Hell, and Forgotten God. Just about any book besides fiction and novels could be considered "special interest", you haven't presented any real reasons as to why this article should be deleted. It seems like you just have a vendetta against this "special-interest group". Regardless of what index it was a best seller, it was still a best seller, the article should stay.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as a compromise I might propose that we merge this article into Francis Chan. Popular as this book may have been I do not think it has any lasting notability beyond it's stint on the bestseller list. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even call that a compromise, basically you just want us to move the information over to Francis Chan, but still delete the article. You still haven't even given an actual reason as to why the article should be deleted.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep book has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources (which by definition makes it notable) and has made prestigious bestseller lists (which by convention makes it notable). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE, good reception section satisfying WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2012 (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.