Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe

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. Secret ^account 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Universe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Im not sure, but it seems that this one does not pass WP:BK. Tim1357 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ulysses press is not a major publisher (though not a vanity press), and i could find no reviews outside firmly atheist websites. of course, this is not a reflection on whether the book is valuable, meaningful, truthful, just that its not currently notable by wp standards. original article was written by author of book, so COI complicates this, but it could still stand if it had any reviews in PW, NYT book review, etc. even Discover, SciAM, you name it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve Google turned up plenty of reviews both from atheists and from angry religionists. This suggests controversy which suggests notability. Agree article as it stands is poor but believe it can be brought up to snuff. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but the nom seems to support deletion. Can we get a close please?Simonm223 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article was created by the author of the exact book. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That may well be but this version has been heavily edited since the original. Notwithstanding a CoI-ish beginning do you dispute the notability?Simonm223 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not notable. No reviews in what could be considered reliable sources. No hits on Google News. --Whoosit (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to satisfy any of our standards for notability of a book; one of the hundreds of thousands of books published that year. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:BK. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.