Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Gospel of Lie

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Gospel of Lie


Appears to be a self-published book that has not been covered in sources; unlikely to ever be accepted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fringe and lacking notability. — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Either Keep or Speedy delete G11. User:Narutolovehinata5's nomination is weak.  "Appears"?!!  Do you mean to communicate that you can't decide, and so are tossing the question in here for others? "Unlikely" is also weak.  AfC needs some criteria and levels of "likelihood to ever be acceptable".  I am on the edge of tagging it G11, due to it promoting a new book, and having no independent sources.  Independent third party sources are needed to start an article on something like this, otherwise it is inherent promotion, as the subject is a commercial product.  "Keep as a draft" is often justified for something that has potential.  This book has several positive unreliable reviews at Amazon.com, why not let if have time in draftspace while the author waits for good sources commenting to come out?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken but I don't see a problem with "appears", my impression is that it's a "polite" writing style (which I use myself at times). — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but. When seeking deletion of someone’s efforts, especially when they are newcomers, it shouldn’t be done lightly, as if on passing subjective impressions. The nominator should be sure. They are making a serious proposal, not answering a request for comment. Would you ask you boss for permission to travel interstate with an opening line “there appears” to be a business opportunity? No, you would state the facts supporting the proposal, objectively. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * NB. I agree that it “appears” a very dubious topic for inclusion. It is certainly not for accepting on current sourcing. However, on reading the reviews (NB at face value), I get the impression strongly that the reviewers think this is a great and upcoming book on bible criticism. NB I am not betting on the independence and broad representativeness of the Amazon reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. self published book in essentially zwero libraries. No possible usefulness as an article. Amazon reviews ae worthless, and the ones for this book proves it. I suggest both G11 and  A11 speedy.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very happy to go with this. I am hesitant to talk about “self-published” books. “In zero libraries” sounds telling. If the Amazon reviews are not fake, and later independent, reliably published reviews appear, then consider starting an article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.