Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Return to Love

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 of the debate was 'keep --

A Return to Love

This author of this article already has a page and a similar article was already merged into that page. Discussion with several editors determined that there wasn't any reason for this particular one of eighteen books by the author to have a page of its own. Please see the authors recently merged page at Marianne Williamson, and the discussion on that page as well. Ste4k 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed, a similar article was already merged into this author's own personal page ... by you, right? Weren't you the one who merged this book's page into the author's page? And then you tried to nominate this page for "speedy deletion" and were told that you can't nominate a page for "speedy deletion" on the grounds that it had previously been deleted, unless it had actually been deleted. It hadn't been. It had simply been merged. I don't think a nominating editor can use his/her own previous merging of an article as justification for deleting the article, can they? That's basically just saying, "This page should be deleted so that I can get what I want." And as I mentioned on the talk page, I think this book deserves its own page apart from her other books because this is the one truly notable book she ever wrote. See the third-party source I quote from that mentions this book was top of the Publisher's Weekly list for eleven straight weeks. I think that's pretty notable. None of her other books achieved that kind of success. -- Andrew Parodi 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to merge this book into the author's page originally began on IRC in bootcamp where it looked to be the only way to save the author's page from being deleted. The author's page hadn't any credible secondary resources. All of the resources listed there on that page now were found on my own behalf and research. The book is prominently noted on the author's page, as well as cited resources for it. Ste4k 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep relatively notable book by a notable spiritual activist (co-founder of the
  United States Department of Peace). May be a bad faith nom, as evidenced by Ste4k's recent AfD's for basically any article related to A Course in Miracles --TBCTaLk?!? 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per above. -- Andrew Parodi 07:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to author. Marianne Williamson appears to be notable solely in respect of the authorship and promotion of this book. Reviewing an entire walled garden for inclusion is not evidence of bad faith; Ste4k is not alone in seeing a lack of any cited support for its significance outside the ACIM movement itself. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is bad faith on his/her part that he/she has continually accused me of being part of "some advocacy group" or of making money off of ACIM, claiming that these things are the only reason I have any interest in seeing to it that he/she doesn't have every ACIM-related article deleted. This person does not understand that deletion nominations are not the place for resolving disputes over article content. Read his arguments for the deletion of Big Brother. This person seems to be prudish. He/she didn't want Big Brother Season 6 to have an article because he/she didn't think it was notable, all the while ignoring the fact that just about every mainstream major show is allowed a page on Wikipedia. He/she seems to not understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Andrew Parodi 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with a user's behavior that you can't work out with them,

dispute resolution is the way to approach it. Here we just consider whether articles should be deleted. William Pietri 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge agreeing with everything JzG has said. It is hard to read the article and conclude that this is bad faith. Clearly worthy of discussion at AfD. Eusebeus 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the nomination is well meant as part of a cleanup of some POV-ish material, but the book spent 39 weeks [1] on the NYT nonfiction bestseller list in 1992 and was seen a decade later as one of two books that took New Age thought mainstream [2]. It even gets a brief mention in the Skeptic's Dictionary [3]. I'd have a hard time calling it a non-notable book. --William Pietri 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per William Pietri. 39 weeks on the bestseller list is a clear sign that this book is notable. --Metropolitan90 00:10, 1 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.