Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild at Heart (book)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wild at Heart (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article contains no WP:RS and is written as a summary of the book in a purely self-promotional tone indicating WP:PUFF and using WP as a form of WP:PROMO. Subject of this article does not meet standards of WP:N. Volcom95 (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for various reasons: First, allegations of PROMO make no sense. The book is 20 years old, made its splash, and conversations have long since passed by it. I think I encountered it in 2002-04... it made such a little impression on me, I literally do not remember the year I was exposed to Eldredge's uncompelling take on manhood. But on to the BEFORE failure: 15 year retrospective from Religion News Service, Christianity Today editorial, Denver Post talking about Drug Cartel members reading it, Critique of the book in Jesus and John Wayne... I could go on, and Volcom95 should have.  In short, this is an unquestionably notable book, with a badly written article, that the nominator appears to have expended zero effort to understand. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The mention in the article in the Denver Post hardly qualifies this work to be notable. Further, the link you've provided to the Jesus and John Wayne book makes no mention of this work. As written, this article is purely a promotional platform for the book, not an analysis of its impact or importance Volcom95 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Volcom95, I understand you're new here, but the Denver Post article demonstrating a wider cultural impact of a work is precisely the sort of evidence that demonstrates notability. I'm going to assume that you looked at the wikilink to our article, instead of the Baptist News article, which includes this:
 * "Du Mez’s first hint that a radical shift had taken place in the world of white American evangelicalism came when students directed her attention to John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul. First published in 2001, the book sold more than 4 million copies in the United States alone. Men are brimming with testosterone, Eldredge explained, because God needs warriors. Men are dangerous, unpredictable, combative and aggressively sexual — characteristics that fitted them for lives of adventure and leadership. Instead of repenting of these traits, Eldredge said, Christian men should embrace them. In 2015, as she watched evangelicals lining up behind the strutting embodiment of the militant masculinity celebrated in Eldredge’s book, Du Mez decided to take a closer look."
 * Finally, I just don't get your assertion that this is promotional: the book is 21 years old, this article was started over 16 years ago. This is like saying a hypothetical overly positive article on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is promotional: it might well meet those definitions, but the financial impact based on time and distance is negligible. Regardless, tone is a good reason to edit the article, and only a reason for deletion if it's incurable. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, those fellows sound interesting, I wonder what their soundcloud is like? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * comment I was hoping we'd find book reviews, which would help AUHTOR. This appears RS, but I'm not certain of the quality of the source. This sort of mentions it in the New Yorker . Can anyone find other sources? Christian book reviews are not in my bag of tricks. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Christianity Today and Religion News Service are both reviews, and two is the minimum. There are clearly more out there, but linkrot will have taken some down in the past 21 years.  It's not hard to find more--I suggest starting with a search string like "Wild at Heart Eldredge" and adding more specific terms like 'review' until you get what you're looking for. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the explanation above then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources provided by Jclemens are plenty to establish GNG. There's varied coverage in independent, notable publications. Sure, the article needs a bit of work, but there's good reason to delete as far as I can see. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I started this article a couple years after I read the book. I hated the book, but at the time it was very influential among evangelicals, so I started the article. "Written as a summary of the book in a purely self-promotional tone indicating WP:PUFF and using WP as a form of WP:PROMO" was never remotely on my radar- like I said I hated the book and recognized it as harmful at the time. Staecker (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually a highly significant work, it's just that the article needs a whole lot of work. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the significant coverage of the book in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reliable independent sources found. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Archrogue (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2022 (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.