:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic

Listed for speedy delete, with a reason of "Vanity review of book, it's more an essay than an encyclopedia article. Plus it seems to be written by the author of the book." This is not IMO a reason for a speedy under WP:CSD, but it is a very good readon for an AFD. Delete or else cite for notability and clean up and NPOV. DES ^(talk) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm the one who nominated it for speedy. The article is written by the author of the book. It is a biased review of his own book, so probably counts as Original Research.TheRingess 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - actually it reads like a copyvio. I can find a few paragraphs of it in "reviews" on [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597510173/104-1820861-2486329?v=glance&n=283155 amazon], but I can't find the rest. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• very weak delete - it's a vanity review, but that isn't a reason to delete, but to clean up and de-POV. We could simply make this into a valid stub. Amazon verifies that the book exists, so, in the end, this is a question of whether this book is notable enough to justify an article. An Amazon rating of 600,000 isn't good - but isn't pathetic either for a technical book (my own is at 2.7 million). What pushes it towards delete for me is that google gives it nothing beyond Amazon - which means university libraries aren't listing it (my book scores several dozen on this front). However, this book was only published in August 2005 - so perhaps there is time yet. We really could do with working out a WP:BOOKS policy. --Doc ^ask? 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep its on Amazon and it exists...but I'm a Christian and can see potential NPOV problems....DePOV it, then Keep Jcuk 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There's also Language of jesus from the same user with basically the same content. Now, Language of jesus can actually be salvageable, but the article in question definitely should go. It's an article on a book, not the theory - and this book is in no way notable enough to warrant its own entry. Flyboy Will 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

:*Concur, though something on the question from NPOV would be valuable. JGF Wilks 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete seems like it's unsalvageably POV, and possible copyvio. Stifle 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.