Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Before Jerusalem Fell

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.

Before Jerusalem Fell

Before Jerusalem Fell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence that the book meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the book is notable as the most cited support for Preterism and Postmillennialism, contrary to the majority view, but nonetheless giving a balance of view. The article needs major expansion. JohnThorne (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough call. I couldn't find reviews in the conventional sources but the article links to an article which discusses the book's arguments at great length.[1] There are 82 citations to the book on Google Scholar which is not amazing but not nothing either. For Gentry's own compilation of comments on it see here: [2] Some of those look like they might go to reviews or other usable coverage. This is as far as I've got. Haukur (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This will be a controversial topic. However the fact that this book has reached a third edition suggests to me that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What notability standard uses number of editions as the criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet
  WP:BOOKCRIT which requires two or more non-trivial reviews (only one review is linked in the article), has not won any awards, etc. - notablility not established - Epinoia (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It looks like this review was published in Bibliotheca Sacra, so that would be the second one, as required. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found one from the The Journal of Theological Studies.[3] StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes
  WP:BOOKCRIT #1 as demonstrated above. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, meets
  WP:NBOOK, 3 reviews are enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[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.