Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cup of Salvation

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. A Train^talk 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of Salvation

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

Fails WP:BOOK - nothing to suggest this book is notable or significant. St Anselm (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What do you mean "nothing to suggest"? You have Mark Rutland a renowned Christian minister and Professor Brad Yound, a top authority on biblical literature endorsing the book. I call to keep the article. --Omer Toledano (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are merely endorsements - for notability, we'd need multiple reviews, preferably in significant journals. St Anselm (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I should explain to you the fact that this book is the first of its kind to lay out a full commentary solely devoted to the Hallel Psalms, something which hasn't been done before, even in Jewish circles, that while this might not mean a whole lot to you but is breaking new ground in a field of utter importance to a large number of people in this world. --Omer Toledano (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, however, that another book on the subject is being published in 2017. St Anselm (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hot topic, my friend. That one is for 2018, not 2017, by the way. Cup of Salvation has already been published. I have stated my claim. Please retract your nomination. --Omer Toledano (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, this book is of major importance because of its coverage of the topic, then it should be possible to find articles discussing it in detail.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BOOK.--Pontificalibus (talk)#
Redirect to Pesach Wolicki as alternative to deletion. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a common book review search and no press on the book's website. Anything that needs to be said on the subject should be said on Wolicki's own page. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i know gsearch is not perfect, but entering the term "Cup of Salvation wolicki reviews" brings up nothing useable, as its only just been published its probably WP:TOOSOON, a ~~redirect~~ to the author may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps~~ Delete -- The whole thing looks like an ADVERT or a publisher's blurb, with a couple of favourable comments from Christian theologians. I do not know what to suggest, but ~~merging to the author~~ is a possibility. This kind of stuff belongs on AMAZON, not WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As COI is established, this is now a clear case of delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article states that the book was published on 1 October 2017 while the article was created on 21 September 2017, just wondering what sort of relationship the article creator Omert33 has with the publisher/author/book? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omert33 links to their own "official website" from their user page and on that site claims to have designed the websites both for this book and the organisation that published it. A clear conflict of interest.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, now it is a delete from me as a clear case of WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, does not seem to be mentioned in independent reliable sources. The creator has a COI and the article reads like an Amazon blurb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. If a redirect is made, it should be made later. The only weapon we realy have against advertising is to make it futile by removing the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 14 October 2017 (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.