Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessed Book of Beasts


 * 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  Bestiary. WP:IAR certainly gives the participants in an AfD the authority to ignore a guideline's requirement for multiple sources. And, while being the first of something in centuries doesn't imbue inherent notability, again, WP:IAR gives the participants here the ability to say, It's notable because we say it is. But, none of those things happened here. As a side note, I'd never heard of bestiaries before; Bestiary is a wonderful article and I'm glad my closing of this AfD introduced me to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Blessed Book of Beasts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

just barely and only meets criteria 1 of WP:BK Avono♂ (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Meeting "at least one" of the notability criteria for books establishes a presumption of notability, and the nom advances no valid arguments for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, as WP:NBOOK states that the book only has to meet one criterion. The nom has openly admitted that his rationale is only meeting one criterion. The nom's argument is quite literally specifically contradicted by WP:NBOOK, the very policy he is citing, so I am closing. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Kinu Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm assuming, based on your changed !vote, that your use of the tag was meant to be the use of the tag, so I've fixed it accordingly; feel free to revert and let me know if this is incorrect. -- Kinu  t/c 16:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge as per User:James500 Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Actually, I fail to see how WP:NBOOK is met. It's the same review by the Catholic News Service that happens to have been syndicated on two sites that aggregate such content. I don't believe that the "multiple" aspect of criterion #1 is met. One review by one person, regardless of whether he is an expert in the field as suggested by the article, is not enough coverage upon which to base an article. -- Kinu  t/c 17:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable per WP:IAR: The word "multiple" in criteria 1 of NBOOK serves no useful purpose whatsoever and should simply be deleted from that criteria because it is complete and utter total nonsense. In any event, one review by an expert is certainly enough to satisfy GNG, which has never required multiple sources in absolute terms. And in any event, if it is the first bestiary written in the Christian tradition to be produced in several hundred years, it is inherently notable. James500 (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the establish consensus on the wording of WP:NBOOK, there are venues for discussing such a proposal; within the scope of an AfD is not it. I also don't see how being "the first X in Y" makes it "inherently notable" (which isn't even supported by the lone source, which simply calls it "one of the first"). -- Kinu  t/c 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The established consensus at WP:IAR, which is policy, is that we can ignore any guideline that is harmful to Wikipedia. I am suggesting that we ignore the appearance of "multiple" in this one, on this occasion, per the policy. James500 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is "one of the first" bestiaries produced in centuries, it presumably satisfies criteria 3 of NBOOK (significant contribution to a significant art form). James500 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is some confusing information around this book. It says that it was written "by an anonymous author under the pen name..." First, that makes it pseudonymous, not anonymous. But in fact a Jon Scott ran a Kickstarter campaign to create exactly the book described here (and it includes his photo, a bio, and contact information). So the great "mystery" about the author is no mystery at all. I found one review not listed here in a Boston-based Catholic news source . If the article is retained, however, it should have more information about the author, the creation of the book, etc. Look at pages for other books and you see that they are not exclusively a summary of the content of the book. Something else must be provided to make it notable. If that can't be provided, then I say delete. LaMona (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source you've mentioned is already included in the article; it's the same syndicated review by Fisher. -- Kinu  t/c 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks. I didn't check for that. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Look at pages for other books" is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:NOTPLOT does require that at least one source that contains something more than a summary of the contents of the book, but the book review cited does actually supply that. It provides critical appraisal, such as saying that the author's citations are appropriate, or that his approach is sometimes stretched but worth the result, and so forth.
 * Even if we decided that this book isn't notable, the appropriate course of action would be merger and redirection to an (annotated) bibliography of bestiaries (probably Bestiary), not deletion, as bestiaries obviously satisfy LISTN as a group. Obvious redirects are not eligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). James500 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch James500. Merge and redirect is a great solution. LaMona (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I still feel that standalone notability has not been demonstrated, but I would not oppose a merge/redirect per James500 above. The book is already mentioned at Bestiary, so cleaning up that particular sentence and changing the reference to something other than a press release (i.e. to the Fisher review) would be constructive. -- Kinu  t/c 15:28, 15 November 2014 (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.