Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inverted Sort of Prayer

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable first book published this year by a non-notable author. Article was written by the author himself who then removed prod. My vote is Delete Dipics 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's rather harsh, isn't it. Why so nasty? Who are you to limit the freedom of information? Needhamchris 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)CN[reply]

• Comment Please don't take this personally Needhamchris, articles on Wikipedia have to meet certain critera for inclusion and this process helps all editors evaluate if this particular article does. Take a look at some of the guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY, this will help you and others familiar with the subject hopefully create an article that meets the guidelines most editors look at. DrunkenSmurf 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as the guidelines say, to self-promote. I don't think it was Dipics' intention to "limit the freedom of information" as you had said, however. There are many places to post information about a book, it's just that Wiki policies implicitly prohibit that. SliceNYC 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This first novel from a new author is also apparently published by a publisher that is publishing their first work. At least it is the only one listed on their website. It isn't listed on Amazon at all, or anywhere else but at the website of this recently virgin publisher. Soon I'm sure that they will have their first non-author's-family sale. Not meaning to sound "harsh" but this is about as non-notable as they come. Nobody is limiting the authors ability to express himself. No freedom of speech or information issues here. But, there is no law in any country that requires anyone to supply the author with a soapbox. If he wants to advertise this first everything book, he should find an appropriate venue, not Wikipedia. Nothing but spam, harsh or not. Beaner1 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SOAP; WP:VANITY and various others. Byrgenwulf 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. And I will reenforce DrunkenSmurf that notability isn't a reflection of the "quality" of Needhamchris, the book, or this article. The book and article could be "good," but still not belong here. --Karnesky 21:53, 31 July 2006 (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.