Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter from a Christian Citizen


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Letter from a Christian Citizen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Book is not notable under WP:BK or prominent among Wilson's works (it's too new to be considered such). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: most of the sources border on trivial, and none serve a general audience (i.e. outside of devout Christians) in any case. David Mestel(Talk) 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable on its own account. Laurence Boyce 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Initially I edited the article to make it wiki-ish, but after reading WP:BK it appears I wasted my time. --Vince undefined 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- per WP:BK Thunderwing 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirddave 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Thirddave I'm a bit confused why this would be considered for deletion simply becuase it is resourceful for a Christian audience.  I am certain there are a number of similar entries on Wikipedia that would fall under this category.  Could someone suggest some stronger reasons for deletion besides those reasons that don't sound biased?  What are specific problems with the entries?
 * The reasons are as stated: it fails to meet all of the notability criteria for books in WP:BK. The fact that there are other non-notable entries in the WP does not mean this one should not be deleted but rather that the others should be (cf. WP:ALLORNOTHING). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete though perhaps I would merge it as a note into the article on Harris's book. If this were considered important in any segment of the outside world it would have had some published reviews. DGG 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but make a note of its existence on the autor's page. The book cannot be notable in and of itself yet because (a) it wasn't the subject of massive media hype before it was published and (b) it hasn't been published for long enough to establish notability. If it becomes an multi-million selling international resource then the article can be reposted. A1octopus 13:14, 18 April 2007 (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.