Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete - I think we must simply apply the criteria set under WP:Notability requirements. A number of citations does not demonstrate its notability or seminal nature - not unless those citations themselves are significant. A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:


 * The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
 * The book has won a major literary award.
 * The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
 * The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

This book meets none of these criteria. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep The first criteria plainly applies. This book was covered widely and extensively in the national and international press and is widely cited by both scholar and general publications. It returns hundreds of citations on Google books and Google scholar. Moreover, there are myriad articles on much less notable books. This seems to be a very POV nomination. Mamalujo (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - this still doesn't mean that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. There may be many citations but I'm not aware of any work which exclusively deals with the text. But perhaps if there is one you could clarify? Contaldo80 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It was reviewed by (i.e. "has been the subject of") so many of the major English language papers, that is enough. The fact that it is cited to in in over 800 books] additionally and at least 100 scholarly articles makes it indisputable that it is noteworthy. This nomination it totally without merit. Not even close. Mamalujo (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep User:Mamalujo's demonstration of the fact that the book is widely cited is persuasive.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This book clearly fails the general notability guidelines as well as WP:NBOOK. Note that two of the mentions are Catholic publications, another, the National Review is a well known apologist for Conservative and Catholic viewpoints (and this was in passing as well). The Washington Post mention is in passing and does not confer notability. So all we've got is the Baultimore Sun, one review does not confer notability as the requirement is multiple non-trivial mentions in unrelated publications in order for notability to be derived in that manner. b  W  21:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WaPo mention certainly isn't in passing; rather, it's a reasonably lengthy review. Besides that and the Baltimore Sun, GNews brings up reviews in the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and other high-quality newspapers, not just interest-group organs. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Being reviewed in multiple major newspapers is clear evidence of meeting WP:NBOOKS. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:46, 31 May 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.