Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:51, 29 November 2005 editBlu Aardvark (talk | contribs)2,008 edits Weak Delete← Previous edit Revision as of 14:57, 29 November 2005 edit undoWarriorScribe (talk | contribs)1,372 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
*'''Delete''' Per nom. Perhaps a mention elsewhere. --] 13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Per nom. Perhaps a mention elsewhere. --] 13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak Delete''' per nominator. Perhaps merging into a more notable subject.--] | <sup>] | ]</sup> 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC) *'''Weak Delete''' per nominator. Perhaps merging into a more notable subject.--] | <sup>] | ]</sup> 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, imagine if encyclopedias listed every published work of any note, at all. Despite its generally use and fame (or notoriety, if you will), it really isn't a significant work of scholarly examination. - ] 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:57, 29 November 2005

The_Skeptic's_Annotated_Bible

Not notable, somewhat of a vanity page Mark K. Bilbo 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I question the inclusion of this article. The SAB is somewhat known in online atheist communities (I'm a regular at alt.atheism on Usenet by the way) and you find a number Google hits but it's still something of a "local" phenomena. It's not all that well regarded and certainly isn't viewed as a scholarly work. The SAB is already cited at Inerrancy and, I think, that's sufficient for a non-peer reviewed, purely web phenomena. The traffic in Alexa isn't terribly high and the discussion forum at SAB has attracted only about 480 users. If somebody wanted to take a crack at it (I'll pass), it might be worth merging into an article of "contemporary" online Biblical criticism works but I just can't--myself--see it having its own article. Mark K. Bilbo 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Seems like small potatos and not particulary scholarly. A mention in inerrancy seems more than enough. David D. (Talk) 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral Currently reads like spam. Probably notable but only if it can be cleaned up. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not it's fantastic scholarship, this book gets over 100,000 Google hits. Looking at the talk page and history it's pretty clear that this article is the victim of more nonsense from Jason Gastrich. The proper solution is page protection. Durova 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I remember coming across this years and years ago and reading a fair chunk of it, but I can't remember any mention of it in the past few years (probably because I stopped reading philosophical debates on forums back in high school). The atheist in me wants to keep it as a notable atheist website based on that, though. Nifboy 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. SAB comes up regularly in online discussion of Christianity - most people with an interest in biblical errors/inerrancy arguments will have heard of it, I think. It's scholarship is shoddy, but that isn't a reason for deletion of the article about it. I don't think it is fair to describe it as a vanity page, either - there is no evidence that the site author wrote the article, and a variety of people have been editing it back and forth. SAB is 'cited' at Inerrancy only as one of about forty links at the bottom of an already-long article. It merits it's own pageSquiddy 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. SAB is very well known on the internet and has been around for years. It's a good athiest resource if that's the type of thing you're looking for. JHMM13 08:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per JHMM13. Seano1 09:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Squiddy. --Enlad 09:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep The writer of the SAB is entitled to his point of view. We are entitled to know that the SAB exists. p.s. anyone who creates or uses such a ridiculous word as 'inerrancy'is just unable to communicate. 82.38.97.206 mikeL
  • Keep. Never really thought about its notability before, but I've used it plenty of times. And <Jonathon Ross voice> can we have a big welcome back to Mr Jason Gastwich?</Jonathon Ross voice> --Last Malthusian 13:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, just in case there's confusion, I'm an atheist, a known regular of alt.atheism, the host of the alt-atheism.org website, and Gastrich thinks I'm in some "conspiracy" to wipe Christianity off the Internet or something equally silly. I'm seriously questioning whether the SAB is notable enough to have a separate article of it's own. Mark K. Bilbo 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Perhaps a mention elsewhere. --DanielCD 13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per nominator. Perhaps merging into a more notable subject.--Blu Aardvark | 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, imagine if encyclopedias listed every published work of any note, at all. Despite its generally use and fame (or notoriety, if you will), it really isn't a significant work of scholarly examination. - WarriorScribe 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)