Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, leaning to keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible
Not notable, somewhat of a vanity page Mark K. Bilbo 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I question the inclusion of this article. The SAB is somewhat known in online atheist communities (I'm a regular at alt.atheism on Usenet by the way) and you find a number Google hits but it's still something of a "local" phenomena. It's not all that well regarded and certainly isn't viewed as a scholarly work. The SAB is already cited at Inerrancy and, I think, that's sufficient for a non-peer reviewed, purely web phenomena. The traffic in Alexa isn't terribly high and the discussion forum at SAB has attracted only about 480 users. If somebody wanted to take a crack at it (I'll pass), it might be worth merging into an article of "contemporary" online Biblical criticism works but I just can't--myself--see it having its own article. Mark K. Bilbo 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Seems like small potatos and not particulary scholarly. A mention in inerrancy seems more than enough. David D. (Talk) 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral Currently reads like spam. Probably notable but only if it can be cleaned up. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not it's fantastic scholarship, this book gets over 100,000 Google hits.  Looking at the talk page and history it's pretty clear that this article is the victim of more nonsense from Jason Gastrich.  The proper solution is page protection. Durova 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I remember coming across this years and years ago and reading a fair chunk of it, but I can't remember any mention of it in the past few years (probably because I stopped reading philosophical debates on forums back in high school). The atheist in me wants to keep it as a notable atheist website based on that, though. Nifboy 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. SAB comes up regularly in online discussion of Christianity - most people with an interest in biblical errors/inerrancy arguments will have heard of it, I think. It's scholarship is shoddy, but that isn't a reason for deletion of the article about it. I don't think it is fair to describe it as a vanity page, either - there is no evidence that the site author wrote the article, and a variety of people have been editing it back and forth. SAB is 'cited' at Inerrancy only as one of about forty links at the bottom of an already-long article. It merits it's own pageSquiddy 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. SAB is very well known on the internet and has been around for years. It's a good athiest resource if that's the type of thing you're looking for. JHMM13 08:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per JHMM13. Seano1 09:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Squiddy. --Enlad 09:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep The writer of the SAB is entitled to his point of view. We are entitled to know that the SAB exists.   p.s. anyone who creates or uses such a ridiculous word as 'inerrancy'is just unable to communicate. 82.38.97.206 mikeL
 * Keep. Never really thought about its notability before, but I've used it plenty of times. And  can we have a big welcome back to Mr Jason Gastwich? --Last Malthusian 13:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, just in case there's confusion, I'm an atheist, a known regular of alt.atheism, the host of the alt-atheism.org website, and Gastrich thinks I'm in some "conspiracy" to wipe Christianity off the Internet or something equally silly. I'm seriously questioning whether the SAB is notable enough to have a separate article of it's own. Mark K. Bilbo 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Just in case there's confusion, I wasn't suggesting that you were Jason Gastrich, just that (per Durova's comments) his cold hand seems to be resting on AfD's shoulders again. --Last Malthusian 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Except it's not even that. Actually, it came out of a question by another user--who is definitely not Gastrich--of whether the SAB is notable enough to have a page and my own attempt to defend the SAB sounded pretty weak in my own ears. Even with my own personal bias of being an atheist I couldn't come up with much to defend the SAB having an article of its own. Mark K. Bilbo 17:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me try a defense: I have voted for inclusion on articles of much lesser notability, whether or not I liked the concept embodied. 100,000 Google hits is a very large number.  I don't believe we're in any danger of lowering the bar here to include all books.  This one happens to be widely read and widely commented upon.  Someone who has heard of it might well look to Wikipedia as a source of information.  The article can list the book's strengths and weaknesses in a nonbiased manner.  Given the subject, few other well known sources can be counted upon for neutrality. Durova 19:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In six or seven years of being one of the loud mouths on alt.atheism and running generally amok in the online atheist community, I've rarely seen a reference to it. In fact, the most attention I can recall being paid to it comes from Gastrich (who seems quite obsessed with it). I just still can't see it having its own article. It's already cited in Inerrancy and Alleged_inconsistencies_in_the_Bible (maybe some other places I'm not aware of). That seems about right to me. Mark K. Bilbo 23:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Delete Per nom. Perhaps a mention elsewhere. --DanielCD 13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per nominator. Perhaps merging into a more notable subject.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, imagine if encyclopedias listed every published work of any note, at all. Despite its generally use and fame (or notoriety, if you will), it really isn't a significant work of scholarly examination.  - WarriorScribe 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not paper. Durova 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but not really relevant to my point. In the meantime, a database can become burdened with superfluous or unnecessary information, and those things may infect the integrity and use of the database, as well as its performance.
 * It could hardly be more relevant. There is no need to delete this, we have room for obscure topics, even if this were one. And don't talk about burdening the database; if this article is deleted, they'll archive this discussion and keep a copy of the article open to sysops, taking up just as much space. Yeltensic42.618 03:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge. Conflicted, but it doesn't seem notable enough for an article on its own.  Best to make it a note in an article discussing criticisms. --StuffOfInterest 16:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as it has historical importance. Should be linked from debates about the bible etc as well as atheism and the like. Zordrac 19:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Historical importance? On what grounds?  Would you care to cite some world events that have been shaped by the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?  Has it perhaps been a central text in the Intelligent Design debates, or did it directly lead to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, or what?  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete/merge. Nothing against the subject-matter as such, but I'm not sure why it deserves an article of its own. This would be well placed in a broader article on critical editions of scripture: there must be other things of the same kind out there.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Sure, it's not the most scholarly work out there, but it certainly has a sufficient amount of notability.  Anyone ever hit Random Article and see stuff that seems trivial that is kept because it's worthy of inclusion?  Anyone ever notice the large section on comics or TV shows?  This is worthy of inclusion.Harvestdancer 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's well-known enough to be worthy of inclusion. Rose 02:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. However, if the SAB is notable enough to have an entry, then a paragraph on rebuttals (namely, the two full rebuttals) are obviously notable as well. --Jason Gastrich 08:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment It's possible, almost certain, that the SAB is more notable than any rebuttal of it. But if it's worth mentioning that people have written rebuttals, then it's worth mentioning the rebuttals.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment As I mentioned Here there could be many rebuttals. It's worth mentioning rebuttals exist, but to specifically mention any rebuttal means that the rebuttal has to be notable enough.  If this article is kept, we need a way to decide which rebuttals are worth specific mention and which would be covered by the sentence "The website has particularly riled Christian fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and some have responded with apologetics."  Most of the alleged rebuttals are covered by that one sentence.Harvestdancer 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment On the same note, it might be said that the "Skeptics Bible" could also be referred to the same way in one sentence at the bible article. --DanielCD 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I did say "most of the alleged rebuttals". My point was that ones noteworthy enough deserve their own metion. Harvestdancer 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Delete of course. Izehar 13:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known reference source. --Gene_poole 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)*
 * Keep of course. Per notability established by Google. Turnstep 02:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the most notableest page in the history of the multiverse. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, very popular and oft-cited site. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2005-12-1 15:49
 * Keep. Preaky 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep, duh. Do you deletionists want to be able to read the entire encyclopedia? I am extremely amused by many of the "reasons" I have seen deletionists cite. Yeltensic42.618 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean, really, unless we're dealing with garbled gibberish text, a hoax, a string of inane comments, or a vanity page for some insignificant loser like me, there's no point in deleting a page...if you don't think it's important enough, just don't read it. Don't ruin it for the rest of us who want to read about it. Wikipedia is not paper; there is plenty of room for more obscure topics. Yeltensic42.618 20:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep 110,000 google hits with the quotes. This is clearly notable. Would you delete just anything because YOU haven't heard of it?? OK, it's mostly vanity, but what we do with notable vanity articles is NPOV, not delete. Jules.LT 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * strong keep not sure if the means my "keep" gets 2 votes or what. Sethie 02:23, 5 December 2005 (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.