The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Article has no assertion of notability and no third party sources. When I looked for some additional sourcing, I wasn't able to find anything but a few blogs and some reposted press releases. Looks like this article was uploaded by the author. MrOllie ( talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete agreed. Does not pass WP:RS. Yossiea (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This discussion is ridiculous. This Wikipedia article presents an important moral and educational book series launched by an established and respected publisher. The author of the series is an accomplished published author. The concept behind the educational series is based on Ecclesiastes 9:14. Is that, too, not worthy of an article?
The second book in the series has just been published. The third books is in production.
I suggest that those of you claim to be patrolling these articles for "authenticity," or "notability," would research the word humility. Stop trying to gather Wikipedia brownie points as online editors and read Wikipedia rules of Notability. This article fulfills those rules. I, the poster of the article, request this suggestion for deletion is removed, immediately according to those rules of Notability.-- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I, the poster of this article, believe the editors of these articles are often not familiar with the material. This is not another children's book. It's a series, the third installation of which is presently readying for press.
The editors are doing the public an injustice by paying too much attention to material and subjects of real academic and moral value.
If you're interested in some junk on Wikipedia, please note and I can point you in the right direction to expend some beneficial energy. Miriam -- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) -- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Article has no assertion of notability and no third party sources. When I looked for some additional sourcing, I wasn't able to find anything but a few blogs and some reposted press releases. Looks like this article was uploaded by the author. MrOllie ( talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete agreed. Does not pass WP:RS. Yossiea (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This discussion is ridiculous. This Wikipedia article presents an important moral and educational book series launched by an established and respected publisher. The author of the series is an accomplished published author. The concept behind the educational series is based on Ecclesiastes 9:14. Is that, too, not worthy of an article?
The second book in the series has just been published. The third books is in production.
I suggest that those of you claim to be patrolling these articles for "authenticity," or "notability," would research the word humility. Stop trying to gather Wikipedia brownie points as online editors and read Wikipedia rules of Notability. This article fulfills those rules. I, the poster of the article, request this suggestion for deletion is removed, immediately according to those rules of Notability.-- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I, the poster of this article, believe the editors of these articles are often not familiar with the material. This is not another children's book. It's a series, the third installation of which is presently readying for press.
The editors are doing the public an injustice by paying too much attention to material and subjects of real academic and moral value.
If you're interested in some junk on Wikipedia, please note and I can point you in the right direction to expend some beneficial energy. Miriam -- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) -- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-- Miriamrosenfeld ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply