Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget Self-Help

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 no consensus. This could be reasonably closed as either Keep or Merge to Thomas Fellows (author), with no obvious guidance on which one to pick, so I'm going with NC. What's clear is that this shouldn't be deleted outright, which is really the important thing AfD has to figure out. A merge is still possible, if talk-page consensus supports that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Self-Help

Forget Self-Help (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

no apparent major reviews, and not worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see reviews in major Christian sources either, just local newspapers.. And all of the material is in the main article on the author in any case. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The target market audience for this book is Christian, and considering that the book got media attention in every single state in the South, a region that is majority Christian, he clearly hit his mark. Player825 ( talk )

@DGG: not surprising that there are no major reviews. Big papers, rarely, if ever, review Christian books. The fact that this book received this much media attention, in an era where papers rarely review books in the first place, is impressive.

With that being said, this book is a popular regional book, not a national best-seller. If the criterium for a book is only a national best-seller, the article should be deleted. Player825 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Player825 ( talk )[reply]

good point. Player825 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge back into author's page. Widely reviewed book per sources on those two pages. "Regional" isn't a reason to delete, and one of the reviews is from Minnesota, so it's not regional anyway. pburka (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it is already extensively covered on the authors page. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to Thomas Fellows (author). I think there's a good amount of coverage of the book at the authors article but it's also independently notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC) (vote edited Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep: It looks like there are plenty of book reviews, on this page and the author's page. That demonstrates notability for the book, and provides material for editors to expand this article further. I don't think that "it is already extensively covered on the author's page" detracts from the notability of the subject of this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2020 (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.