Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Before Abraham Was

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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus to delete this article (especially as the nominator has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, it is debateable whether their !vote should be counted). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the AfD, the consensus (with the nominator's 'delete' taken into account) is to delete. The issue seems to be "does 1 substantive review help a book to meet WP:NBOOK?", to which consensus seems to be "no" PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before Abraham Was

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete (as nom) per failing WP:NBOOK. Unnotable book by unnotable authors. BelloWello (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed that the nominator's !vote is "delete". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as notable. At least one substantial review, two shorter ones, and reference [1] discusses the book's argument at some length. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only one substantive review, from the conservative Touchstone Magazine (which can reasonably be assumed to be ideologically partial to the book's thesis). No indication that this work meets WP:NBOOK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sergeant Cribb. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator BelloWello has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Is this AfD still valid? OCNative (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a best-seller, not a book of substantial influence among politicians or the population, not a book that has made a splash among the intelligentsia. Just a book. There are lots of books. They should not all have Wikipedia pages. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, just being the object of three passing reviews is a terrible standard for the notability of academic works. In one of my areas of interest EVERY book coming down the pike gets three reviews between Slavic Review, Russian Review, Kritika, Russian History, Europe-Asia Studies, Revolutionary Russia, etc., etc. If one makes a few academic book reviews the gold standard of notability, you've just made published non-fiction literature into professional baseball — if it comes off the press, it's in. Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A comment : Just passing through and noticed that this article is up for deletion. I don't understand why. It meets criteria 1 in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) standard, and was useful to me. It was reviewed by a theology today, a journal published by a noticeable organsation: Princeton Theological Seminary and the author was a professor at a prestigious university - Berkley. In summary I don't think this article is a waste of space. It should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumbee86 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC) — Gumbee86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.