Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can We Trust the Gospels?


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can We Trust the Gospels?

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears not to pass Notability (books). I tagged this page in August 2007 as needing third-party references, and still only a single review has been provided. (It's favourable, but doesn't seem to assert that the book is particularly important.) I can't find any reviews listed in the Google News archive, Books in Print, or the ATLA Religion Database. The author has no Wikipedia article. EALacey (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked Lexis Nexis and JSTOR and find no reviews. If a book has multiple reviews, especially in scholarly journals, then an encyclopedia article can usually be supported quite well... but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Movingday29 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for checking these sources. In the interest of fairness, I should point out that JSTOR's coverage lags behind publication by a few years (deliberately), so it isn't likely to include many reviews of books published in 2007 regardless of notability. EALacey (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It does not appear to meet WP:BOOK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable book. less than 100 recorded library holdings, which is insignificant for popular works on this topic.DGG (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation, per DGG and the fact that this looks more like a book review than encyclopedia article. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2009 (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.