Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult-Proofing Your Kids


 * 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   redirect to Paul R. Martin. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cult-Proofing Your Kids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Single review found. Tgeairn (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - I'm not seeing multiple reviews, only multiple mentions. Seems to fail WP:BOOK and GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This book may meet criteria #5. The book's author is so historically significant. It seems this book covered a large part of his own biography, so if in fact he is notable than this book is a story about his life. I have made a few changes to Paul R. Martin to reference notability. The obituary referenced has some highly notable events including court cases and TV interviews in which he was involved. - Gaming4JC (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment: The issue with arguing point 5 (author is so notable that all things would inherit notability) is that it's typically applied to people that have achieved notability on par with authors like Shakespeare, JK Rowling, Harper Lee, and the like- people that are considered to be common household names and/or are people whose works are taught on the regular in classrooms across the world (or at least across their respective nations). The catch is what the rule implies but does not state outright: that the person would be so historically notable that it would be extremely unlikely that the author's works would not have been the focus of independent and reliable sources. In other words, if the author is at that level of notability then individual sources would exist for the book. If they don't, then odds are high that the author has not reached that level of notability. It's the same catch that applies to performers/celebrities with a notable fan following: it's expected that someone of that level of celebrity would have articles focusing on them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Paul R. Martin. I cannot find anything to show that this book is particularly notable outside of its author, nor where the author is so notable that the book would pass on that criteria. There are mentions of this book, but almost solely as a footnote in other books of the same type and not really ones that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This just isn't notable enough for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the idea of deletion leaving a redirect is a good one. Nobody has really made an effort to defend this topic as a free-standing piece on the basis of multiple reviews or universally recognized significance and it seems a reasonably easy call in spite of low participation. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * merge to author page. Couldn't find quite enough notability to validate a keep, but I think it deserves a blurb. Deunanknute (talk)
 * Delete and redirect. Do not merge; the book is already mentioned in the article n the author.  DGG ( talk ) 12:43, 18 February 2015 (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.