Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope of Glory


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hope of Glory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Book is not notable per WP:BK. RandomWookiee (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete -- A book derived from sermons on the Seven Last Words is unlikely to be notable. An article on the theological concept of the Hope of glory might be worth having.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep and move to "The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross" - May be WP:TOOSOON as book was published 9 days ago. Author is notable, and has a page. Everything currently on this page is also already on that page in the bibliography section so there is no case to merge. I agree that it does not meet WP:BKCRIT so is not notable for a page. I would also oppose creation of a redirect. The title is a Bible quote and found in a number of other works, so it would be confusing to redirect it to the author's page. The creator has also created two redirects to this one that would also need to go, if this is deleted. They are The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross and The Hope of Glory (book). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * update Since I wrote the above the article has been expanded with sources (it only had a promotional one before). In light of the Newsweek article, which I missed when I was searching yesterday, I think this just makes a keep, but in light of the notable author, any lack of sourcing is just that it is a little too soon, and I am confident it will definitely meet WP:NBOOK soon. The Newsweek article is short and general (if it were unlikely that the book would receive any more attention, I think the Newsweek article would be insufficient to establish notability, but the book is pretty much bound to receive more attention). I am thus modifying my position to keep. However, I remain strongly of the view that the book has not gained sufficient notability to be the primary page for the title "The Hope of Glory". This title is already the title of multiple books including:, , , , . Goodreads lists it as a component of the title (as for this book) in 129 titles. It is also a Bible term, a frequent sermon topic, and a theological perspective. As that is not even the actual title of this book, the book should be listed under its actual title. A redirect from the shorter "The Hope and Glory" would be acceptable until and unless a disambiguation page is required. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 21:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  Bait30  Talk? 17:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Press appearances are not independent.  Bait30   Talk? 19:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT #1. I couldn't find the Publishers Weekly review, but now that someone found it, it clearly has two reliable reviews (Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly).  Bait30   Talk? 20:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. If the subject of an article has been the subject of multiple third-party sources, then we keep it. These other judgments like if the book is interesting or if author has a page are irrelevant. I came here because I watch this user's talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (note: creator): The book was just published and there are additional sources to add. Meacham is a notable author of several other independently notable books, and he is doing many press appearances. Also, even if this topic were deemed not notable at this time, redirecting would be more appropriate than deleting altogether. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable author ✅, major publisher ✅, notable topic ✅, mentions in Newsweek and the Today show ✅, ya, let's put it up for deletion! Please, someone, stop the deletion express when obvious 'Keep' pages are concerned (maybe a new set of guidelines are needed?). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK, it’s got two reviews from reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK, reviews from PW and Kirkus suffice. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Hard to see how a book that a reliable source named as one of the "20 Most-Anticipated Books of 2020" wouldn't meet WP:GNG. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK. Has two or more independent reviews in reliable sources. Hog Farm (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross, as noted above, this is a a fairly common phrase, and it would be annoying for someone searching the general phrase and not the book to come up with this article instead. The Hope of Glory (book) redirect should be deleted as unnecessary--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Your vote implies keeping the article, but can you specifically confirm your preference to keep or delete? Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to delete the The Hope of Glory, but want to keep the article itself, moved.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, multiple reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Reviews are common for popular authors and can not be the sole indicator of notability. WP:SUSTAINED - "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." WP:IINFO "Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works." There is nothing in the article discussing the significance and influence. As is, the article does not contain anything beyond a common book review or promotional snippet and the article is unlikely to expand. RandomWookiee (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC) struck second delete vote by the nominator, the nomination itself counts as a delete vote, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple reliable sources such as independent book reviews shows a clear pass of WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK --Fadesga (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2020 (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.