Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historia scholastica


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Historia scholastica

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established Basileias (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC(
 * Snow Keep 500,000+ hits in google books and 275 cites in Google scholar. If you think it needs more references, add them yourself, don't just nominate it for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps this quote from a 1946 scholarly article sums it up - Anyone who familiar with the program of theological studies at the University of Paris during the Middle Ages will recall the vogue of Petrus Comestor's Historia Scholastica. That was not difficult to find on even a cursory Google search. Notability is very clearly asserted in the article; as Francis Bond says, if you disbelieve it check first before nominating for deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 11:12, 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) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is frankly a pretty good place for an IAR/SNOW close, as the Historia scholastica is a historically important Biblical paraphrase.  I've added the reference that AJHingston discussed above to the article so that it is no longer single-sourced (although more can probably be cited to that article than my drive-by one-off revision), but quite frankly a significant rewrite wouldn't hurt; there's a lot that has been said about this book. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I also added more refs, so this article is gaining multiple refs through AfD (though that isn't the purpose of the process). Clearly notable for the 12th-16th century and now as a historical ref. AllyD (talk) 23:10, 22 November 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.