Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant J. Pitre


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Brant J. Pitre

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Biography bereft of any WP:INDEPENDENT source. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of non-primary sources is a big issue, and, frankly, I'm not seeing all that much worth saving: it reads very generic bible scholar, without any interesting details. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 03:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Before someone objects includes an article by Pitre. So not WP:INDEPENDENT. And he is not a subject of the book, although his works are cited several times. tgeorgescu (talk)  03:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And if you want an independent WP:RS: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/confecting-evidence, but that would make it a wholly negative WP:BLP article. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, scholars routinely publish books and articles, so publishing books and articles is not evidence of WP:N. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but having those items cited by others is evidence of WP:N. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC).
 * Not exactly: WP:N requires that Pitre (or his works) were subject of an in-depth coverage in books or journal articles. Again: getting cited by other scholars is nothing out of the ordinary for a scholar. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. Take a look at WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC).


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bible. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, leaning Keep. Far from my area, but if you search GS for "Brant Pitre" (rather than with middle initial) you find a great deal more citations (top one 115). Putting that name into WL Ebscosearch comes up with loads of book reviews, which look sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If those are judged to be WP:RS, they should be cited inside his biography, and this request be closed as keep. You see, I do not necessarily want his biography deleted, but independent sources should be provided for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * From EBSCO:
 * "However, I frequently found his historical evaluations to be overly optimistic and at times bordering on apologetics. [...] – I could not help but feel that Pitre’s analysis was often too averse to tension and contradiction, and that his methodology was too much like a sieve that allows everything to pass through."
 * Frayer-Griggs otherwise expresses admiration for Pitre's book.
 * "Our discipline’s methodological foundations in form criticism and the criteria of authenticity have been shaken if not razed altogether,1"
 * Ryan's whole analysis stands or fails upon this claim.
 * "My minor criticisms notwithstanding, this is an excellent book that I highly recommend."
 * "Pitre has argued this contrarian, reformist, and restorative agenda thorough strictly biblical criticism in a half-dozen previous works including [...]"
 * "Pitre has convincingly challenged a number of assumptions in the study of Jesus, and his work must be engaged by anyone wanting to understand Jesusthe first-century Jew."
 * "If I were to locate him on a scale of criticism I would put him in the camp represented by, say, N. T. Wright (or Joseph Ratzinger)."
 * "To demonstrate his thesis Pitre adopts certain methodological guidelines implemented by E. P. Sanders in the latter’s study Jesus and Judaism. That is to say, Pitre adjudicates the historicity of the Last Supper based on a combination of the following factors: (a) its contextual plausibility in late Second Temple Judaism, (b) its coherence with the evidence of the New Testament gospels, and (c) its plausibility as the cause for the Eucharistic practice of the early church. This method certainly offers three necessary conditions for the evaluation of the Last Supper’s historicity. However, given the subject’s complexity, those conditions alone seem insufficient for the task. Pitre chooses to disregard other well-known and established standards widely adopted in the field of historical Jesus research, such as the traditional form-criteria of authenticity and the earliest New Testament sources. He highlights his reasons for doing so by briefly appealing to the ‘powerful critiques’ of the former as well as to the continuing questioning of the Synoptic twosource hypothesis in some academic circles."
 * There are some other sources, but I don't know if any of the above count as WP:RS. E.g. Cunningham is the only full professor among them. There might be other full professors who wrote about Pitre available at EBSCO, but since I could not decide whether they approve or disapprove of him, I left them uncited. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep for very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep the author is simply a conservative biblical scholar and a prolific author. Some of his books are bestsellers and there is no real reason to delete him, in my view.-Karma1998 (talk)
 * Yes, but you should know that our own opinions do not matter. The opinions of WP:RS do matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep He may not be especially well-known or at the top of his field, but looking at the citations in the article he seems to be notable enough to at least have a short article about him. Vontheri (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep He is very well known in American Catholic popular academic circles (a surprisingly large niche). Some coverage: America, Catholic News Agency (CNA is owned by but editorially independent of EWTN, which has featured Pitre in at least one TV show). If anything, this article could be shortened to remove non-independently sourced material. Also, "full professor" is less a standard for RS than the fact that reliable source published an individual as an authority on a subject, so I see the above block quotes as pushing this article well-past GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * keep as he passes WP:NAUTHOR based on multiple reviews for his books:   for one book,   for another.
 * Keep and rewrite This appears to be another case where “there are sources, but none of them are cited”. Perhaps this is because many of the sources present a negative view of the subject. If that is the case, then the solution is to examine the sources and rewrite the article, not to delete. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per refs presented above. Also, this is not the first time I’ve seen issues with exact names and Google Scholar searches.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm sure the nominator knows about WP:BEFORE, and that article content does not determine notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2023 (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.