Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counterfeit Revival


 * 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   merge. m.o.p 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Counterfeit Revival

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability in doubt. Basileias (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It didn't look very promising from the article itself (which is unreferenced and fails even to say why the book is notable) but Google Books shows that some other books are talking about it. Somebody even wrote a book refuting it. There are a few, but not many, Google Scholar hits as well. I think it is borderline whether this book deserves its own article but if it does then it deserves a better one than this. At the moment, I can't see that the article adds much to what we already have in Hank Hanegraaff and there is a POV issue in that it completely fails to cover the criticism of the book. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with author as implied by DanielRigal. The author's article already contains a somewhat similar piece of text.  This is an article about a book, apparently arguing that the Toronto Blessing and another recent movement at Brownesville are not revivals.  I would have expected an article with this title to be about a concept or subject, but it is only about a single book.  Accordingly if the article is retained, it shoud be renamed with the suffix "(book)".  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * merge as suggested above. Not particularly more notable than his other books, and a merge would be more helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 1 December 2011 (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.