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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Coconut Generation

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. This should have been deleted at its previous AfD: there are no established reliable secondary sources covering the book, and the ones which are included fall far short of what we'd consider to be appropriate to consider a book notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOOK. No evidence of notability outside of personal blogs and publications directly linked to the author or his organization. The blog hits suggest importance to South Asian Christians but I'd expect this to be evident in independent sources, and I can find none. Ivanvector (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't really find anything independent of the author that would show notability. I found a mention in this article, but the article isn't about the book. There was a journal review but I can't verify that George isn't a member of the organization or how the reviewing system there works. Even if we count this review, it still wouldn't be enough to show it passes NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about this review? And the book is noted in various books and articles. Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem I found with the review is that I couldn't tell if it would be considered a RS or if the author was or wasn't a part of the organization. Mostly it's that I can't verify if it'd be usable, since it's published through Lulu- making it a SPS of sorts. If you can find enough sourcing I'm willing to change my vote. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 24 May 2014 (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.