Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraphim Rose (book)


 * 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 redirect to Seraphim Rose. Clear consensus against a standalone article, marginally higher support for this target. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Seraphim Rose (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Book fails WP:GNG, almost no critical reception, currently appears to be out of print, no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment should probably redirect to the Seraphim Rose article, I find lots for the individual, no hits on this book. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Oaktree b. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Pomona College Magazine critically reviewed the book here, as did Orthodoxy in Dialogue here and Sons of St. Joseph here . The Orthodoxy in Dialogue post, now included in the article, noted that it wasn't until the book Seraphim Rose was released "that a fuller picture of Fr. Seraphim’s life was available." That adds to the notability of the book as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with reasons above that the book does not meet notability standards that would justify it for an article. One of those reasons given is that the book is out of print. I have not seen where that is a criterion for deleting a sourced article about a book. Notability has been established to keep the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep off source total but I think it could be merged with Seraphim Rose if others agree. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Question per WP:NOPAGE is there any value in covering book and subject in two separate articles? It certainly seems that, even if notable, there isn't really anything to say about the book or person that does not involve the other. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Seems like there are those advocating Keep and those calling for a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer to Question from Jclemens (talk). I read through both articles again and went to all of the links and saw little if any overlap. To answer the question, yes, there is value in having both the book and an extensive biography on Wikipedia as stand-alone articles for the following reasons, which includes that the Wiki articles are starkly different. The book article shows notability and meets guidelines for the following reasons: The book is notable in that it includes a more complete picture of Seraphim’s life that was previously unknown, which has historical significance and makes a significant contribution to a religious community and movement; the book caused controversy that is documented and notable; a Google search shows that the Seraphim Rose author is known and has written other books, including several other biographies. The Seraphim Rose Wiki book article outlines what the book is about, whereas the Wiki article details biographical content and information about Seraphim Rose's life, making them completely separate subjects. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Cathy Scott. The sources listed by AuthorAuthor aren't so much about the book per se as about Seraphim Rose himself; the book is only mentioned in passing as the work that first made public his homosexuality. I haven't found any other useful sources, only blogs. I think it is more usual to redirect non-notable works to the article about the author rather than the subject, but I don't object to redirecting the page to Seraphim Rose instead, if it helps to establish a consensus. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the book's author Cathy Scott. I concur with Sojourner in the earth that if the consensus is not for keep then it should be redirected to the book's author. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. So we have some editors advocating a Redirect/Merge to Seraphim Rose and those who would prefer a Redirect to Cathy Scott. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect. IMHO both targets of Cathy Scott and Seraphim Rose are fine, and I'll be okay with whichever more popular option. However, I oppose keep as most of the current refs discuss primarily Seraphim Rose himself, but does not discuss the book significantly to meet WP:SIGCOV IMO.  VickKiang   (talk)  05:33, 27 October 2022 (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.