Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Aside from the headcount, which is firmly to delete, the delete side of the debate has done a far more thorough job of analysing the sources. The outcome of that analysis is that the sourcing isn't sufficient for the purposes of the relevant notability guidelines. The analysis has not been refuted. The previous AfD outcomes do not substantially influence, let alone bind, the outcome here. Consensus can change, as our decision-making processes become more mature. Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:N

A topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

The article has 7 'sources':
 * 1) - self, useless.
 * 2) - 'Iowa Atheists', dead-link, clearly not a reliable source in any case.
 * 3) - Doesn't appear to be a reliable source either, plus it is a trivial mention, just one sentence at the end of a section.
 * 4) - Appears to be a link dump of bible studies. Book's blurb: 'The new edition includes more than 4,800 resources available at more than 10,000 Internet sites that provide information on a range of biblical study topics.' This is the very definition of a 'trivial mention'
 * 5) - This is certainly 'significant coverage', but I'm not sure it is reliable. Is this a letter to a newspaper? Why is the author's email address at the bottom, and with an @yahoo.com.mx address, rather than @elnuevodiario.com.ni as you would expect?
 * 6) - self again
 * 7) - you can check this on Amazon, again this is a trivial mention.

It seems that this article has been through several AFDs and that, rather like the GNAA article, people have been trawling the 'net for mentions of it, trying to find a justification for KEEP, but have come up with little that's actually allowable as a source/reference for Wikipedia's purposes (the many google hits not withstanding). Checking Google news the Nicaraguan website above is the only hit in all the Gnews archives. It seems that a truly notable topic would have rather more out there than this.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lifeboat is sinking after 2 AFDs. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. If you think it needs to be cleaned up then nominate it for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.71.19 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well no it doesn't meet it, that's the problem. The problem I describe above is a fundamental GNG issue, not cleanup.Sumbuddi (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't make the notability cut. The standards for a website are laid out at Notability (web) and this website doesn't come close. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for a lack of notability. Mention in most sources is indeed rather trivial, and the Spanish opinion piece, the only non-trivial mention, is insufficient on its own. Huon (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per MelanieN: not a sufficiently notable web site. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I really, really would like to see an article on this. This site is quite well known, and very unique. And I'm sure many Wikipedians are fans of this site. Additionally, there are a lot of references to this site online, but nearly all of them are passing references in blogs and forums. Those factors are why it was kept in the past, despite many delete votes. Many believed this article could be properly sourced. However, unfortunately, there just isn't enough discussion amongst third party sources at this time to warrant an article. Especially when one considers WP:WEB. I did some quick searches and couldn't find anything useful. Having this articles means breaching WP:N and Wikipedia policy. That said, if someone cares enough about this article, they should move it to their userspace and try working on it to see if, somehow, it can be improved. Or wait until it can. Then, if, and only if, more third-party references are added, the article can go through WP:UNDELETE. I would suggest adding more information on the history of the website, if possible, and its popularity, as shown through references (preferably news references) and site hits. Danski14(talk) 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I decided to go and add some references, just to see what it would look like. They are to blogs or various websites, one is to a book that may or may not be notable, and one is to a "Websters dictionary" that really isn't a dictionary. I still don't think it is quite enough to be kept, but I think this is close toa a borderline case. I will defer judgment to whatever consensus is reached. At the least these references show what can be done. Danski14(talk) 05:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in what people think about the reference to Conservapedia. On the one hand, it's only tangentially related, since it only briefly addresses SAB, and mainly offers a counter-argument. Does it count as a "reliable third-party publication"? And, does that fact that it was written most likely in response to the Wikipedia article lessen it's notability? Danski14(talk) 05:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Conservapedia, as a wiki project, does not count as a reliable source to establish notability, but it could be cited as a source of opinions. IMO of course. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, especially since it's such a high-level source.Danski14(talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep noting the references added by Danski14. MtD (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Allowing more time to evaluate Danski14's sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "Webster's dictionary" source is a Wikipedia mirror. All of the other sources listed, or that I can find, are self-published or trivial apart from the opinion piece in El Nuevo Diario, which isn't enough on its own to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I would never have noticed that. Danski14(talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete nonotable fringe view. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno about that, rationalism has been around for a while now... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, not a fringe view. 2/3 of the world is non-christian. 15% is non-religious. so it safe to say a large number are skeptical of Christianity.  Danski14(talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Sadly not enough reliable coverage in mainstream media. (The mainstream doesn't want us to talk about the Bible -- either believe or reject take your choice -- but that's another story.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, upon consideration of the nominator's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WEB still applies; none of the added sources:
 * http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com
 * http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html
 * http://www.gotquestions.org/skeptics-annotated-Bible.html
 * http://skepticsannotatedbible.org
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=6UJeAAAACAAJ&dq=Skeptic%27s+annotated+bible&hl=en&ei=RaGRTN6ZMYL_8Abuq9nVBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=OXJpOwtxM1sC&pg=PA25&dq=%22Skeptic%27s+annotated+bible%22&hl=en&ei=U6GRTK6mFcP38AbU-7GBBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Skeptic%27s%20annotated%20bible%22&f=false
 * are remotely reliable, blogspot, some non-notable online Christian advocacy sites, a self-published book that was discussed and rejected as a source in previous AFDs, and some sort of spam/wikipedia compilation book.Sumbuddi (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - One of my personal inclusion benchmarks for religious topics is this question: "Does Conservapedia consider it worthy of coverage?" Not that Conservapedia is a landmark of scholarship, by any stretch of the imagination — it's just that their obsessive concentration on religious themes gives one a sounding board for what religiously-driven people consider to be important enough for encyclopedic coverage. For what it's worth, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible merits coverage at Conservapedia. Their sourcing is much worse than that of the Wikipedia article which we are discussing, it should be also noted. Websites are hard in terms of what merits coverage and what does not, but it is my sense that this is one that does. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia lacks plenty of religious articles, such as 'Jesus Myth Theory', while having others that are utterly trivial. I'm pretty sure it's not representative of anything other than a very particular strand of muscular right-wing American ideology. There are clear guidelines on what makes a website merit coverage. For instance 'GNAA' has huge numbers of webhits, and is very well-known, but it apparently fails WP:WEB. It is not appropriate to follow WP:ILIKEIT and describe this evaluation as 'hard', when the notability standards are in fact very clear and easy to follow. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, truth be told, evaluations of articles relating to websites are "hard," since most of their documentation involves feedback from other websites... Guidelines are just guidelines, decisions need to be made upon the question "Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article?" in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Preferably we try to avoid "high level" sources like encyclopedias. Also, it's pretty obvious the Conservapedia article was written in response to the Wikipedia article, but giving a conservative christian take on it. So, oddly enough, it doesn't necessarily indicate notability. Danski14(talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pointer to the fact that this does not seem to be some obscure site to which no attention is given. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We may as well say that the site is notable because it has a Wikipedia article. We're looking for reliable, published sources that are primarily about the subject, not more web sites. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have just noticed that the second AfD debate ended in KEEP in January 2010, less than a year ago. Notability is not temporary. If people feel a mistake was made, that decision could have been appealed to Deletion review. Bringing it back here constitutes a disruptive manifestation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume bad faith. It is not usual to appeal a 9 month old KEEP deletion. Otherwise we wouldn't have had 19 GNAA AFDs. I read this article for the first time on 9 September, noticed it lacked sourcing, and listed it for deletion. To call that 'disruptive' is in itself disruptive. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a procedural violation, in my opinion. The correct procedure is an appeal to Deletion Review, not shopping for a new AfD result. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Notability is not temporary" does not mean "once an article is kept at AFD it's notable forever," it means that saying a subject is 'no longer notable' (as with a retired athlete or a one hit wonder who's been off the charts for a while) is not a valid deletion rationale. It means that if a subject meets the GNG, it doesn't matter if all the sources being used to support inclusion are from five years ago: notable then, notable now.  It does not mean that AFD contributors are infallible or that the decision reached in a single AFD is always the correct one.  A deletion review is not an AFD and should generally not be used to contest the consensus of a past AFD.  It can be used to contest whether the close accurately represented the consensus of the discussion, or to present significant new information that wasn't discovered until after the discussion closed and may have prevented an article from being deleted.  If one simply wishes to argue for a new consensus, the correct course is a new AFD.  That's why we have a procedure for creating second and third AFD discussions.  That is, as the nominator stated, why the GNAA article was deleted after an umpteenth AFD, not after a deletion review.  This discussion is completely appropriate and absolutely not disruptive.  Notability isn't temporary, but consensus isn't permanent, either.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 20:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I thought when this article previously came to AFD that it clearly failed Notability (web), and I was surprised to see it kept. The only sources added since my previous comments are self-published Christian criticism, the inclusion of which just indicates that significant religious commentators haven't noticed the website. Even one of the cited sources contends that "almost none of SAB deserves detailed response". I don't consider the existence of a Conservapedia article relevant; Conservapedia has only a dozen or so regular editors, and their level of interest in topics like "Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience" is unlikely to represent that of American conservative Christians in general. EALacey (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good secondary source coverage, satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources would you classify as "good secondary sources"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources presented do not appear to be reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2010 (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.