Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23 Minutes In Hell

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The result was keep/withdrawn. An obvious reason to have speedy userfication. — Timneu22 · talk 01:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 Minutes In Hell

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

No indication of importance, no notability asserted, no sources. — Timneu22 · talk 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kinda early to be XfDing this article as it was just created? Do we loose anything by letting the author of the article finish their work? Hasteur (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No need to be so quick on the draw--see this search. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. — Timneu22 · talk 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Converseley WP:BITE, WP:DEADLINE, WP:NPP, WP:BEFORE. You're supposed to do due dilligence (see if it's possible there are sources) before putting it up for deletion Hasteur (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, judging by the lightning speed proposal for deletion, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this isn't the first time this page has been around. It would be pretty impossible to perform the necessary research to determine whether the appropriate guidelines were met during the 3 minute interval between creation and tagging. So delete away. I've been through this song and dance before and I know how it ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could always write the article including the proper references, instead of letting other editors do the work for you. I don't necessarily agree with the nominator, but that doesn't mean I think you did your job as article creator. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ironically, one of the sources cited, which derided the author of the book, Christianity, and religion in general, made the case for this book's notability by mentioning that it was a New York Times best-seller. (See here for an example; I don't know where this book peaked on the best-seller list, and this is just an example that shows it was ranked, not necessarily its best ranking.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of a problem there--I could not find other evidence of NYT status, and that newspaper (a campus paper) can't really count as much of a reliable source. Drmies (talk)
  - Just look at this search; if the book is listed on best-seller charts that we can see on NYTimes.com, we don't need to rely on a college newspaper's claims that it was a NYT best-seller. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, in that link you provided, did you see what was on no. 22? ;) Drmies (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the descriptions of this book that I could find, I take it that the author of 23 Minutes in Hell didn't report being offered any beer in hell, but then, he said he was only there for 23 minutes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect Metropolitan, how could there be beer if he were in Hell? Dlohcierekim 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You would have to ask Tucker Max about that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Clearly fails WP:NB. Could qualify only under criteria 1, but there's only a single review in a student newspaper. Does appear to have sold quite a few copies and attracted some discussion, but all seem to be on blogs and the like, none on maistream Christian or secular sources.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's incorrect. The book is reviewed extensively here, in a notable publication, Christianity Today--footnote 1 in the article. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I'd like to see another review, but combined with the evident high sales volume, I'm leaning towards keep....Sumbuddi (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the article's creator and (up until recently) principal advocate, I'm going to say that we all know how this is going to end. Save everyone some time and trouble and pull the trigger right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know this at all. I'm not sure if you're trying to be helpful or not. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anyone cares to make a wager on that send me a message. Otherwise I'm not wasting any more time on this article since it'll be in the trash heap very, very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I fully expect this one to be a Snow keep (and yes, that's a bit of a pun). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is decent, Notability is somewhat established by NY Times list showings. Improvement can still continue IMO. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other sources exist besides those already listed, such as these articles from New Statesman and Philadelphia Weekly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~perhaps a speedy~~ keep is in order. Generally, being a NYT best seller makes a work notable. Dlohcierekim 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only placed 22, but still combined with other coverage is notable. Dloh cierekim 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all due respect, Timneu22, this is why it's ill-advised to rush a new article (and new editor) into AFD 5 minutes after the article was created. Dloh cierekim 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Geez. One of these "less than 5 minutes and it's at AFD" cases again? WP:DANNO. And notability has been establshed through NYT best-seller list. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though you were right about Novelty vs. predictability getting an afd, this afd is nonscense, and I dont need to explain, clearly the consensus has explained better than I could, its a NYT best seller, cant get much more notable than that. Longevitydude (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in multiple RSs means WP:NBOOK is met. SmartSE (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bestselling book backed by reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2010 (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.

23 Minutes In Hell

zproxy.org