Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason for nomination. Lack of notability. Few hits, most from extremist websites. Antonrojo (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:BK sets out five guidelines, of which a notable book should meet at least one. I don't see it doing that.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. (I am the article creator) As to WP:BK - The book has been reviewed in several media. I first learned about Double Cross in a review which appeared in Roman Forum (together with the Pope’s book on Jesus!). I have since found that Catholic media such as the Catholic Herald have written about it. As to WP:OR – I would like to know which bits are “making claims outright” which are unacceptable. The article is meant to be descriptive only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serioso (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A lot of this appears to be WP:OR. Article starts by summarizing the book, but then shifts to making claims outright. TN ‑ X - Man  15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not just because it is WP:OR and he's just about as notable for having his flight to Munich cancelled as for his book from what I found, it looks as though Theo Press has only one book, his, which strongly suggests it is self-published.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the book has indeed been reviewed by several established organizations and entities, it may indeed be notable. I'd be willing to consider that.  The article, however, does not state this, nor does it give evidence of this.  The burden of demonstrating notability is placed upon the text of the articles themselves and thus, by necessity, the editors who create and maintain them. If you can provide reliable sources of review, perhaps the OR concerns can be fixed, or the article reworded to satisfy the community... but you need to cite these sources before this discussion is closed, it can't just be claimed.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentI see there is a reference -- a pretty useless one -- to The Roman Forum used in the article. It's unverifiable, so can't be used for any purpose. The Roman Forum is some sort of online newspaper -- see  - I searched the site with Google and could find nothing under either the name of the book or the author. As for outright claims, it looks as though everything after the first sentence in 'the Church and the Jews' is an outright claim.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of reliable references. Fails WP:BK, and likely WP:OR.-- danntm T C 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Roman Forum is not an online but a printed magazine. The Catholic Herald which reviewed the book is a weekly published in the UK. The book has also been reviewed by the Midwest Book Review, the Library Journal, The Newsletter of the Secular Society in the UK, the Newsletter of the German Humanist Society.

As to the suggestion concerning outright claims - the article is purely informative and does not make any claims of its own - whatever other people´s feelings are about books which criticise the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.6.64 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In the absence of reliable and independent sources. The Wayback machine doesn't archive anything from theromanforum.com, the citation thereto is incomplete so can't be verified readily even if I could find a paper source, and a search for the book excluding wikis, blogs, and most for sale sites came up with exactly 10 hits, none of which are reliable sources.  (The Catholic News Agency one is only a hit because of a reader postpended comment.) GRBerry 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you can find the links for the LJ review and the Catholic Herald review, and they are substantial reviews, it might well justify the article. I think that The Herald is the leading UK Catholic publication. DGG (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (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.