Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resurrection Planet


 * 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. JForget 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Resurrection Planet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable book. Fails Notability (books). StAnselm (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Hello, I am probably posting this in the wrong place, but I'm a little lost. Re: your deletion request for "Resurrection Planet," I have reviewed the arguments that Wikipedia allows me to use and, to get past the jargon, I simply would like to point out that this particular book, while not being a bestseller or an Academic tome, does have a unique contribution to make. It is a rather unusual blend of religion, politics, and sci-fi horror purposefully designed to help readers past the typical post-Apocalyptic thrill ride and make a more thoughtful consideration of just what might happen if the Messiah delays His return until men have moved on to other planets (admittedly, an unlikely event in view of the way our world is self-destructing). Anyway, while I appreciate your concern for preserving the sanctity of Wikipedia, I think you might like to compare the Resurrection Planet entry to about...oh, I don't know...maybe a thousand other entries that certainly seem more commercial than this one. Wikicleric (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Here's one for example: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies And, of course, its "prequel." As for other crap (see next note) I see your point, but vanity press sometimes has less of a crap odor than formally published crap. My apologies to Jane Austen...--Wikicleric (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. andy (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Argument by the analogy that other articles are worse isn't really valid; see WP:OTHERCRAP. I would suggest endeavoring to find some sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. --Cyber cobra (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See my counterpoint about "vanity," above. Resurrection Planet, seemingly destined to be un-resurrected, has significant value of a social nature, regardless of its publishing source. While Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: Dawn of the Dreadfuls (give me a break) hardly can make that claim. I say: out with the trash, then, one flush for all three! Otherwise, find something else to sniff at. Wikicleric (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless extraordinary secondary sources are provided; vanity published novel. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike Resurrection Planet, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has been shown to be covered by many outside sources, satisfying the WP:GNG and Notability (books). As Wikipedians, we don't engage in original research to determine the social value of a book, we rely upon the informed opinions of reliable sources to make that determination. --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be self-published; self-published books are almost never notable since they don't get the independent, reliable attention needed to meet Wikipedia criteria. Note that User:Wikicleric is the author of the article and is close to being a Single purpose account. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Every editor who isn't drawn in by the concept of Wikipedia itself starts off by editing on a topic that happened to strike his fancy. Let's leave scrutinizing him aside until he does something more actionable than bearing some resemblance to people who are prone to doing something actionable. --Kiz o r  22:58, 3 June 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.