Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex and Religion (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   keep. Davewild (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sex and Religion (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD declined by  creator  with out  comment. Concern was : ''No history found of awards or 'critical acclaim'. Sources are publishers' or booksellers' listings. Does not meet criteria at WP:NBOOK.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say keep on the basis of the Morgenbladet review, which is significant coverage, and on the assumption that some of the other cited things are also significant (the currently linked Adresseavisa [sic] mention is not), but I'm finding it a little suspicious that the only hits I'm getting for the other article titles are the page itself. Are they spelled correctly? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that Adresseavisa refers to Adresseavisen. I found another review published by Norwegian news server forskning.no and another one by Dagbladet. In my opinion there's enough coverage to compile a decent article about this book. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I saw that the original critique of No history found of awards or 'critical acclaim'. Sources are publishers' or booksellers' listings I deleted that sentence, and included a number of proper references instead. And, yes, Adresseavisa should be Adresseavisen. All but two references are now connected to the respective external page HappyQamper (talk | contribs) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (GMT)
 * @HappyQamper: A part of your article (starting with "...receiving very positive reviews with praise such as “one can only be—yes, the only word is impressed”, “a great academic achievement”,[4] “transmission of knowledge at its best”[5], “an enormous database of knowledge, all recounted in a cool, laconic tone”,[6] “easy to read and actually entertaining”,[7] “very interesting and full of knowledge”,[8] and “an entertaining nonfiction book”.[9]") reads like an advert somewhere on Amazon. It should be rewritten in a more neutral and encyclopedic way. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 17 October 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.