Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eta Linnemann Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking The Literary Dependence of the First Three 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. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Eta Linnemann Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking The Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This appears to be a large book review. This is clearly a real book available from Amazon and known to Google Books, but there's nothing encyclopedic here. It seems likely that what we have here is some combination of OR and/or COPYVIO. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is not an encyclopedia article and there's no prospect of having one here. On the article talk page the author (of this article) speaks of writing it for a class.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication given that the book is notable, or the author. aside from the book itself, nothing in this article is remotely encyclopedic, and it can be deleted without loss. if creator wants to try to create an article on the book, or the author, with references indicating notability, thats fine, but it may be an uphill battle. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete once I got through the title, I still had trouble figuring out what this article is supposed to be about. Is it a biography?  Is it a book?  Appears to be tyring to be both.  Neither meets notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per RadioFan. Pepper |piggle 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is a mess. Subject's GS h index is 7 so would not achieve WP:Prof #1 even if demessified. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete - Nothing to salvage here even if someone were to try to clean it up. --  At am a  頭 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per radio Fan. Wow, what a mess. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - difficult to tell precisely what this is, but it doesn't appear to satisfy any notability guidelines and reads, to me, as an essay, which Wikipedia is not.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  03:37, 12 January 2010 (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.