Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wishful Thinking: a theological ABC


 * 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. We're going to keep for now. Feel free to discuss WP:MERGE on the on the appropriate talk page(s). Missvain (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking: a theological ABC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

almost no third party sources, except a book that covers indiscriminately everything he wrote. No evidence of an particular importance.  DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Needs more citations for verification and that dictionary is not well known. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * leaning merge back to a section on the author's works. Buechner, having been both prolific and acclaimed, has lots of references to passages in his books, and this one is no exception. That said, in looking through some of those, it's pretty clear that this is a lesser work where there are a few passages that caught readers' eyes, rather than wholesale engagement with the work as separate from his other work. I also gather that it is one of a set of works which address common themes. I don't think deletion is in order, if only so people are aware that it isn't a dictionary or glossary, but it seems to me better treated in the fairly abbreviated section on his nonfiction. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, first up, Buechner is historically significant in the field of theology so point no. 5 is met, apart from this, Wishful Thinking has been the subject of multiple reviews, a quick gsearch brings up reviews in The New York Times - "Mere Christianity’ Wishful Thinking A Theological ABC." (review by Edmund Fuller who writes "The same stylistic power, subtlety and originality that have distinguished his novels, from “A Long Day's Dying” (1950) to “Open Heart” (1972), lift “Wishful Thinking” far above commonplace religion books nearly to the level of C.S. Lewis's “Screwtape Letters.” An artist is at work here in the vineyard of theology, an able aphorist with a natural gift for gnomics, a wit with wisdom." - reinforces point 5:)), kirkus - star review here, CrossCurrents - subscription required, Choice - here, a couple of dissertations that reference Wishful Thinking - here, and here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to a section on Frederick Buechner or include more details on the Frederick Buechner bibliography article. It's not a clear pass of WP:NBOOK, but also not a clear fail. Has been the subject of multiple published works (Criteria #1) but most might not be independent or reliable enough. And it's unclear if the author meets Criteria #5. Interesting that this trilogy is not mentioned on the author's article. Should be condensed and moved to that article, but allow someone to recreate this article if it more clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article that are given above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the same reasons given above. I also wish to note that the article now cites three independent works, two scholarly and one popular: Dale Brown's authoritative and comprehensive study of Buechner's work, The Book of Buechner (2006); Marjorie Casebier McCoy's scholarly and selective study of a number of Buechner's works up to 1987, Frederick Buechner: Novelist and Theologian of the Lost and Found (1988); and Jeffrey Munroe's popular study of Buechner's works, Reading Buechner: Exploring the Work of a Master Memoirist, Novelist, Theologian, and Preacher (2019). It should also be noted that all of these works were published by respectable presses (Westminster John Knox Press, Harper and Row, and InterVarsity Press, respectively). With this in view, the original complaints against this article (that there are (a) 'almost no third party sources', and (b) that the third party source referenced merely 'indiscriminately' covers 'everything he wrote') must surely now be rejected. Objection (a) is no longer true and objection (b) is debatable at best -- scholarly works that attempt to account for an author's body of work are not 'indiscriminate', but are undertaken based on the generally accepted premise that both the author and his work are considered worthy of such research. This last point is strengthened by the status of the publishing houses that have chosen to publish the works cited, because well-respected publishing houses do not publish literary criticism on authors and works of low importance. InklingScholarWycliffeHall (talk) 14:18, 19 December 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.