Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stricken by God?

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. Hut 8.5 10:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stricken by God?

Stricken by God? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not assert notability, and likely cannot because of its newness (it was released yesterday according to Amazon). Several of the book's contributors are notable, but not all works by notable authors are worthy of articles. Additionally, the page appears to have been created by one of the book's editors (see WP:COI). Flex (talk/contribs) 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Book doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria listed here: Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria Cogswobbletalk 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete First, the reason suggested for the deletion of this article is mentioned as a criterion to be avoided on Wikipedia's "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions":

"Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability". Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability. The mirror of "Just not notable" is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim of notability. Notability requires an explanation so that other editors may be able to verify the claim as well as seek sources. An explanation is also helpful in deciding whether or not the subject of an article meets existing policies and guidelines that may cover the subject."

Even if this argument is found wanting, there can be no qualms over the notoriety of its contributors (NT Wright [Bishop of Durham], Rowan Williams [Archbishop of Canterbury], CFD Moule, Miroslav Volf, Richard Rohr, Marcus Borg, etc.), and the collaboration of such an elite group is indeed noteworthy.

Additionally, the person responsible for requesting the deletion of this article is clearly merely in opposition to the opinions expressed in the book, as can be determined by the items he or she typical writes about: i.e. limited atonement, Calvinism, irresistible grace, and total depravity. In this sense, the aforementioned person merely wishes to restrict the book's exposure and the promulgation of its viewpoint. Therefore, this person's real reason for wanting the deletion of this article actually falls under another unacceptable reason for deleting an article, namely "I just don't like it."

Notwithstanding these arguments, the reason of lack of notability is nullified by the book's academic nature as per Wikipedia's policy on Notability (Books):

Academic books: "Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions."

The book is published by one of the most reputable Christian publications (Eerdmans) and is soon going to be evaluated by a panel at the next American Academy of Religion (the largest and most prestigious religious society in the world) annual meeting in San Diego in November, 2007. Furthermore, the endorsements on the back and inside first few pages attest to its wide reception by very reputable scholars in the field.

Also, even if the article was added by one of the editors, which is at any rate mere speculation, the article itself does not provide a glowing review of its content to any degree, but instead outlines the content of the book in a very dispassionate manner. Certainly there is no need to delete the article based on such a criterion, and if there is a conflict of interest here, it lies with the person requesting the deletion of this article as demonstrated above.

There is no reason to delete this article other than that the content of the book's material is in opposition to a certain strain of Christian thought, and the continued marketing of this book therefore threatens said strain of Christian thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexorandi81 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand both the "Arguments to Avoid" and the intentions of the other editors. Neither of the editors that argued for deletion simply said it was "not notable" and left it at that. Flex explicitly stated the reasons he thinks it's not notable. I simply used the guidelines at WP:BK and noted that this book doesn't meet any of the criteria there. Even if I look at WP:BK#Academic books, I don't see a reason to keep this article. This article should be deleted because the book isn't notable (yet) according to any guidelines that Wikipedia has. Cogswobbletalk 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Moreover, please assume good faith. I strive to make the Wikipedia balanced and neutral by including all significant points of view. I most certainly don't want to delete this article because of a disagreement with the some of the book's ideas (otherwise, I'd be trying to delete a goodly number of other articles like unlimited atonement, Christus Victor, Islam, etc.). Rather, I think it should be deleted because the book -- not the idea of a non-violent atonement -- doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion. (BTW, endorsements on the book jacket and publishing house don't establish notability, though they may lend credence to it.) As far as the editor who created it, his/her user name is the same as one editor of this book and his/her other edits are nearly all related to inserting this book in the Wikipedia (sometimes helpfully, sometimes not, IMHO), and I merely said there appears to be a potential conflict of interest. The content itself is neutral, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion of the newest book or anything else and the editor would have a vested interest in free promotion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Cap'n Walker 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although this is published by a respected academic publisher in the subject, most collections of scholarly essays are not really notable. Some few are, but it has to be proved by reviews and references. It would be a very exceptional work indeed that would be so recognized immediately after publication. I am certainly sympathetic to the insertion of articles of academic subjects, especially in the humanities. But this is not very likely to be notable ever, and certainly to have an article at this point would be inappropriate. I think Flex well understands the factors involved, and I endorse his view. DGG (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The threshold for inclusion is whether or not the topic has been covered by reliable third-party sources. And it appears this hasn't. 17Drew 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• You may all be right. I have yet to find another comparable book on Wikipedia; for instance, no other work by NT Wright or Rowan Williams is given its own Wikipedia article (while only their contributions to Stricken by God? are given an internal link). Perhaps this book would do well to garner a mention as a reference on 'Recent Controversies' in the Penal Substitution article and the like. Lexorandi81 18:29, 20 October 2007 (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.