Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welford Street Miracles

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welford Street Miracles

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Welford Street Miracles – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.[1]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-published book, held in zero libraries. Tate is among the more responsible self-publishing firms, but it's still self published) DGG (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was nominated twice on the same day. I have merged the nominations. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources indicating any notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE. This is not a self-published book. It is published by chrisitian publisher, Tate Publishing,(not a self-publish firm) and was released on July14, 2009. I am the author, R. Merial Martin. What more reliable source than from the author and his backup links and websites. Check its similarity to "The Shack", which is in same format.Shikabuck (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Shikabuck: at multiple occasions I have tried to explain to you that WP requires independent reliable sources to establish notability of a subject. Nobody denies that your book exists. The problem is that there is absolutely no proof that the book is notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Please follow the wikilink in the previous sentence and read that guideline, it will explain clearly what is required for this article to be kept. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable book published by a vanity press. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, a company called Tate Publishing is a vanity press. Which one actually published it? In any case, the book lacks notability. Amazon sells it, but it ranks #781,840. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 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.