Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Kings Book Series


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Two Kings Book Series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has no assertion of notability and no third party sources. When I looked for some additional sourcing, I wasn't able to find anything but a few blogs and some reposted press releases. Looks like this article was uploaded by the author. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Delete agreed. Does not pass WP:RS. Yossiea (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- Yossiea (talk)  21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, assuming no further sources found. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non notable. Shlomke (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. This Wikipedia article presents an important moral and educational book series launched by an established and respected publisher. The author of the series is an accomplished published author. The concept behind the educational series is based on Ecclesiastes 9:14. Is that, too, not worthy of an article?

The second book in the series has just been published. The third books is in production.

I suggest that those of you claim to be patrolling these articles for "authenticity," or "notability," would research the word humility. Stop trying to gather Wikipedia brownie points as online editors and read Wikipedia rules of Notability. This article fulfills those rules. I, the poster of the article, request this suggestion for deletion is removed, immediately according to those rules of Notability.--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This deletion is tied in with Articles for deletion/Fishel Jacobs editor of these books that are very minor in the pantheon of Jewish let alone general literature. Not every Jewish childrens' book, of which there are thousands should get its own Wikipedia article. The author of this article means well but needs more time, as she admits, to familiarize herself with Wikipedia's guidelines, but as it stands this articles seems like a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and Conflict of interest. IZAK (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When I originally posted this article, it had extensive source material including: Talmudic sources, Mid-Ages scholarly commentaries as well as accepted Jewish philosophers and thinkers. Someone deleted that material, claiming it was irrelevant.

I, the poster of this article, believe the editors of these articles are often not familiar with the material. This is not another children's book. It's a series, the third installation of which is presently readying for press.

The editors are doing the public an injustice by paying too much attention to material and subjects of real academic and moral value.

If you're interested in some junk on Wikipedia, please note and I can point you in the right direction to expend some beneficial energy. Miriam --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was originally posted by User:Rabbijacobs. Do you/did you operate that account as well? - MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this book in particular is notable--i.e., where it has been remarked upon substantially by published, third party sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (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.