Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable publication, the references are all supporting material in the book, NOT the notability of the book itself which clearly fails WP:NBOOK. PROD was disputed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book is clearly non-notable. Some of the information may be merged into Methodism. I also have doubts about the Woodie Blackman article. StAnselm (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:BOOK, which is why I PRODded this in the first place. I also have doubts about Woodie Blackman. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sadads (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A review of WP:JUSTAVOTE may help in participating in deletion discussions. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cindamuse (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am highly suspicious of an attempt to delete an article only 2 days after that article was created. I suggest that the author of the page be given a reasonable chance to improve the article, (not everyone comes into Wikipaedia every day or every week - some people have real lives to lead). While the book may have limited notability for most of us, it is entirely possible that, given the topic of the book, it has regional notability in parts of the Caribbean. This knee-jerk attempt to delete a book article reeks of book-burning. BlueRobe (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep the hyperbole out of this. Not having an article about a book in no way equates with book-burning. The article was fully-formed, and even at that early stage it was clear that it fails WP:BOOK Get over yourself, for pity's sake. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you appreciate the the meaning of "hyperbole". Or "metaphor". And calm down. BlueRobe (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication of how this would meet notability for books. I can find no critical reviews, or coverage aboutt he book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- This is a slim book on the history of Methodism in the West Indies. My question is, 'What else is there on the subject'.  However, I would be happier with an article on Methodism in the West Indies, which might rely on this book as one of its major sources.  A number of references have eben added, but I suspect they are not concerned with the book, but are references for its content.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not understand your keep rationale. The references in the article do indeed verify the content of the book rather than covering book as they mostly predate the publication of the book.  The book may cover a notable subject, and may be useful as a reference, but that doesn't make th book notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The book is not notable. WorldCat shows only 9 holdings, which is absurdly low, even for the most specialized interest. The article on the author needs some very serious pruning, and I am about to do it. It will be easier to judge notability after that--but he does have other books with more library holdings.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Delete but if I were an interested party I would request WP:USERFICATION before (preferably) or after the discussion close and then rewrite it with other sources, easily Googled, to be mainspaced under the title "Methodism in the West Indies", which as a topic would pass notability in a flash. The three "p"'s should be "P"'s of course. JJB 05:56, 24 September 2010 (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.