Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River of the Lord: A Path Through Suffering


 * 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   Speedy Delete - G7 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The River of the Lord: A Path Through Suffering

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Just published, not notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is a work of literature from an american born writer. it is published and currently on web sites and amazon.com all over the world. the author is on radio stations cover millions of people, on KDAZ tomorrow morning and on KBJS Nov 21. It is a powerful and although recently published, well received book and as amazon.com best seller in genre. For a Wikipedian to state that is is not notable would be, at this point, unrealistic as it is a fast selling well received book appropriate to the world as the times in the world call for books that give people comfort and hope are necessary and desired. Now, that this book is a rapid best seller with its author going on national radio and T.V. it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have informational documentation about the book and author. Not to do this would make Wikipedia an outdated source of encyclopedia information. I object to its deletion. Enderle67556 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The book is not notable until it is recieving non PR coverage. If it is truly a best seller, then those sources will be available shortly, and at THAT time, an article will be appropriate. Every book which is published is not notable. Every book that is for sale on amazon is not notable. Every book that a local radio station or tv station will let a guy get on and talk about for 5 minutes is not notable. It is not up to the editors to prove that a book is NOT notable. it is up to you, that want to keep it, to prove that it is. Find some newspaper or magazine articles, add the references. Or recreate the article when they are available.  Radio interviews that havent happened yet do not count. The fact that you are aware of radio interviews that have not happened yet indicates that you are probably not an impartial editor on this subject, and are likely related to the author or companies involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. According to the links for Westbow Press, "WestBow Press was resurrected in 2009 to offer self-publishing services to aspiring authors," which makes this a self-published book. Dayewalker (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep--not everyone wants a book published by publisher because you give up many publishing rights. those who can afford to self-publish choose this because you retain all publishing rights and royalties. Just because a book is self-published, in this day and time, does not mean it is lacking in any way. once a book is published, regardless who publishes it and it is on a national selling scale, then the author is no longer "aspiring" but rather published. Alloy4765 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * published vs self published is really not an issue. Its notability. You could 'normal'-publish a book and have it be not notable (although it is less likely, since the publisher wouldn't go through the expense if they didn't think it would become notable). Making something AVAILABLE for sale nationally does not mean it is actually SELLING nationally. It takes 5 min to get something self published on amazon, that cannot be the fair standard for inclusion as notable. Also, I have a suspicion that you are a sockpuppet for enderle, since you have no other contribs, and you created the author page within minutes of a different user making the page for the book. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

okay--i defer to Gaijin42 and will remove the page if i can. or agree to its deletion and will repost after the interviews and TV appearances and add the references.Enderle67556 (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (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.