Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Christianity

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. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Christianity

Encyclopedia of Christianity (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)

Article is a case of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a blatant
  WP:NOTCATALOG violation. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Ultra-lite dictionary definition which seemingly exists only to promote several vaguely similar titles with links. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Arxiloxos below. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In light of the complete transformation of this article at AfD from a dictionary-lite promotional list to a piece on one notable project going by this exact name. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge#Christianity as a likely search term for people looking for a particular Christian encyclopedia. There are a few books out there with this title (or something close to it) that might be notable, such as John Bowden's 2008 volume published by Oxford [1] (sample reviews:[2][3][4]); if/when an article gets written about such a book, we'll have to deal with disambiguation, but for the moment, I think a redirect to the list is the most constructive approach for this term. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, I agree with Arxiloxos re the appropriate target. Moswento ^talky 09:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Good job finding a good redirect there, Arxiloxos. Sasquatch t|c 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Undelete Yeah, agreed, thanks Arxiloxos, I've used all those links you provided to change the page to be better now. Doug Christian (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: The page creator has just now re-established the page as focusing on one single encyclopedia. As such, all previous discussion should render as invalid and we should now discuss the merits of keeping the page as currently established. My new vote is a weak keep. While notability still isn't firmly supported, it is present. Deadbeef 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This remains a mish-mash, you had it right the first time. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article certainly still needs improvement, but in what way is it now a "mish-mash"? It has a focused topic now. LadyofShalott 16:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lets wait! – I suggest we give the article's creator a few days to work on it. It certainly needs both improvement and also some evidence of notability which may not have had time to accumulate yet. Jpacobb (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I found another citation in the Napa Valley Register saying it was one of the best books of 2005. Doug Christian (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've found several more reviews - see the article talk page for citations. LadyofShalott 21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reviews from reliable websites aren't difficult to find to establish notability, and the redirect option leads to a section which appears to be just a collection of links to unrelated Wikipedia articles. Article needs expansion, but the topic itself seems good. Chri$topher 23:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to satisfy GNG as there is more than one review. James500 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the merits, now that the article has found a focus. Good editing, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the new article that has emerged. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Switching to keep per above comments and article improvement. Caution is needed here to keep this article focused on the one-volume Oxford project, and avoid a
  WP:FRANKENSTEIN effect: one of the sources that was added to the article[5] actually reviews a different project [6] to translate the great German-language de:Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon into five volumes in English. We could certainly have an article about the Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon (it is already listed at List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge#Christianity), but it would need to be a different article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• NOTE I deleted this as part of a mass deletion of articles created by this sock puppet account, named in honor me me and my supposed excessive pro-Christian views and then claimed to by my sock puppet at SPI. The editor has created dozens of sock puppets and hundreds of articles (and some clear vandalism) in a stated blackmail attempt to get unblocked (he was blocked in part for misuse of sources and is now community banned). Because the article's topic has actualy changed I have agreed to undelete it in this exceptional case.
  talk) 06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And if it weren't both pathetic and crazy, it might be funny - when blocked, he wrote on his talk page "Hi, I've apparently been blocked because I am a sockpuppet of Dougweller. I confess, it's true. I am out for a global, christian and racially biased world dominion over the encyclopedia." He must be the only person (besides one YEC editor that thinks I'm the most evil racist on Wikipedia) who thinks this.

talk) 06:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep with the proviso that the promotional angle should be toned down a bit. At the moment it sounds a bit like the publisher's flyer. Deb (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I do not see much wrong with the article in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2013 (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.