Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond intelligent design

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. The deletion comments below indicate that the book is not sufficiently notable for inclusion based on a lack of substantial coverage in independent sources, a critical point that the comments in favor of keeping the article do not address. If someone would like the text for use in an established article, please leave a note on my talk page. --jonny-m t 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond intelligent design

Near-orphan article about a self-published book about intelligent design. No evidence that it has attracted significant attention. See Wikipedia:Notability (books) (WP:BK) for a relevant guideline. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well written article; book has attracted some attention; "near-orphan", "self-published" and "about intelligent design" are not grounds for deletion. Could possibly be re-factored as article about author with sections on publications, radio talks etc. BTW, if article stays, I think it should be moved to Beyond Intelligent Design, over re-direct, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mulder and his views might be notable, but his self-published book probably isn't. For all we know he's sold 5 copies... Brianyoumans (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preciously little information on the book itself, and no reliable secondary sources for that. Mulder probably is notable, his book isn't. Huon (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will agree that there seems to be little information to be found about the self-published book of this title by Mulder (a title it shares with several similar books and articles). Or at least, I have not come across much information about the book yet. However, when I first started this article, it was intended to be about the associated radio spots / segments. The list of stations that currently regularly play these radio segments runs to 23 pages. When I investigated, I found that there was a self-published book as well, and that the author lectured on the same topic as well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Might be relevant as a reference or source cited in article about Intelligent Design etc. Though I'm not a fan of "self-published" I don't think that is prima facie evidence against a work. It's just one factor in determining notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't matter whether it is self-published or not; what matters is whether it has been noticed by third parties. The same goes for the radio spots and lectures. Are there reviews, articles discussing it, criticism, praise, etc.? I don't see a lot of that in the article, but I suspect that it may exist. Since I haven't searched for references myself, I won't vote either way. --Itub (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to relevant ID articles. I initially considered renaming to Melvin Mulder, but a simple Google search of "Melvin Mulder" intelligent design produced barely anything that would sustain a bio. The book title of the article is clearly a coatrack device for info about ID and the author in general. There appears to be mergeable factual content, but this is not by default a keep vote in my mind, if the content is not merged within a month (if not deleted here), it should be Afd'd again with this in mind, where I would vote delete. MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several external publications about the book are cited in the article, enough to establish notability.Biophys (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I wouldn't have nominated if I believed that to be true. I've examined the references and find none that would pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) (WP:BK) guideline. "Multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience" ? Could you explain how this or any other criterion of the guideline is met? --Jenny 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (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.