Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein and Religion


 * 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 (non-admin closure), As per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion

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

Reads like an OR Essay or scholarly review of the book. LegoTech &middot;( t )&middot;( c ) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have cited an academic review of this book to further demonstrate its notability. The current style of the article is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep ( I am the editor who created the page ) My process for the article was as follows.  I discovered references to the book in the main article Einstein.  Next, I used my library's access to Book Review Index online to find scholarly book reviews.  After carefully reading those, I methodically created each of the wikipedia-article sentences while carefully reading portions of the book along with passages from its references, periodically re-checking the scholarly book reviews, especially the one commissioned by the Harvard University Society of Fellows. (I used this process to avoid plagirism of the cited book reviews.)  The article's not complete and I'm certainly very far from perfect as an editor, but I can swear under Biblical Oath that I followed the process as I've stated.--Firefly322 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is still a violation of WP:OR despite your reasoning, Firefly. However, if you add links to those scholarly sources, that will help the article's standing. Happyme22 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is heading for an overextended out of proportion chapter by chapter synopsis, but the book is notable none the less.a little watching will deal with it. DGG (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I bet loads has been written on this interesting subject. O.R. in an article is fixable. Sticky Parkin 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because Princeton Press and other citations make this book as if not more notable than some of the more google heavy but novels on AfD. gren グレン 09:29, 29 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.