Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humble King Returning King


 * 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   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Humble King Returning King

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

Non-notable self-published book. Review quoted is a customer review on barnes and noble's web site, not a professional review. Google search turns up no reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. andy (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article comes right out and admits this is self-published, even going so far as to include an advertising blurb for the vanity press right there on the page! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I hadn't caught that Pete Kovacs, the author of the book, basically is RNK Publishing or I would have nominated for deletion myself.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like Mr. Kovacs is creating a walled garden related to himself and his work. Little to no evidence of reliable, independant notability. Avi (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete Not sure why all of the sudden this onslaught of delete notices. The SCU Advocate is not just a "student newspaper" it is widely distributed and read all throughout Silicon Valley where Santa Clara University School of Law is located. Our professors are some of the USAs top attorneys and alumni are in Silicon Valley law firms and corporations. You can delete this but I will count it as pure religious discrimination. As one law prof said, "what goes around comes around." Be sure to consider what Pete Kovacs and Humble King Returning King are all about...fighting injustice, oppression, suppression of free speech, anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is primarily a "free-speech" forum. Maybe you should actually read the article "The Patriot Act: Noble Ends, Questionable Means" before you act in the manner that is evidenced here. I figured the CIA/FBI/VP Cheney would've come to terms with their atrocities by now, but it seems they are influencing this generation to act like fascists. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you think any kind of discrimination is involved. Quite simply, the book does not meet our guidelines on what books should be included, as described at WP:BK.  You'll note that neither the subject matter of the book nor the religion or race of its author are relevant criteria on that page.  Objective facts are: has the book been reviewed in multiple professionally published, reliable sources?  It doesn't look to us like it has, nor does it seem to have won major awards, or be the subject of instruction in multiple courses at academic institutions, or any of the other criteria on that page.  Why is it that any time some standard is not in the interests of a Jewish person it is so predictably labelled anti-semitism?  Is it just some kind of knee-jerk reflex, or is it intentional abuse of our tendency to try to correct for prejudices? JulesH (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, technically, it would be more proper to call it anti-Christianity, not antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 13:19, 31 December 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.