Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bible Unearthed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible Unearthed

The Bible Unearthed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is essentially a POV fork. It uses the form of a book summary to present a lot of information in a non-neutral way. StAnselm (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - So is the basis for deletion deviation from neutral point of view? Because I'm not seeing it. The article needs some work, but from what I can tell it seems to accurately relate what the book itself argues. Now the book would fail NPOV by a mile, but of course it is under no compulsion to be even the slightest bit neutral. This stuff is somewhat out of the mainstream for biblical scholarship, but hardly novel. Xymmax (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What is this a POV fork of? It appears to be an article about a book. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This AFD is essentially about the version of the article. We could take a look at this version, which constitutes its last structure prior to a substantial rewrite last year by PiCo. I don't think that is needed either, but thought it worthy to point out. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The book is notable, and while the article is not quite top-notch, there is no reason to delete this. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazon.com lists it as Best of 2001 and has a review by Publishers Weekly. This seems to indicate more than enough notabilty. If there are POV problems, that can be addressed without deletion. Deli nk (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also reviewed in the New York Times [1] POV is an editing issue, not an AfD issue.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book is notable but the article would be enhanced with any significant published criticism.GoldenMeadows (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Speaking of forks, I could really use one right now for this salad. We just ran out of plastic forks today. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - much more notable than a lot of books that have articles on Wikipedia. Needs more real world context, but certainly not a reasonable candidate for deletion. In this case, I'd argue it is mainstream but the 'mainstream' is divided on the issues it covers.Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as the content of this article is drawn directly from the book itself, but there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. At best, the content of this article is a synthesis formed from the primary source, but without secondary sources, it can be classed as original research written from an in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You're calling in universe perspective on an article about a notable, distinctly non-fiction book? Odd.Shemeska (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit with a chainsaw. A significant chunk of this article needs to be cut, but if I'm reading this right it was the subject of a History Channel documentary. [2] As others have said, the POV problems, in-universe material and so forth are issues that aren't suitable reasons for deleting it, as it seems to be sufficiently notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article can be improved with a bit of sourcing and editing. Web Warlock (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, here is the NYTimes review for anyone that want's it. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html Web Warlock (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Decent article on a notable non-fiction book. The content summary could be trimmed down, and these additional sources should be added, but there's no reasonable reason for deletion. Of course the content is liable to be inflammatory to some people on ideological grounds I suppose, and I'm sure that sources can be found on that as well.Shemeska (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per others. No valid deletion reason given. Rray (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No reason to delete; per DEL and BEFORE, if something can be fixed by editing, AfD isn't where you take it. Celarnor Talk to me 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as insalvageable. This article isn't about the book, this article is the book. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is this version, for example, that the article could be reverted to. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional keep, if reverted to that version or similar one. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep The book seems to be notable. Too much space in the article is given to retelling what the book says, as others have mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (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.