Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church

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 Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church

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

Lacking notability; filled with dubious claims; WP:FRINGE (conspiracy theories; specifically the WP:NOT rules as expounded in Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories); unsourced. I do not believe this article can be improved to the point where its inclusion can be justified. The article (and the book) is much like presenting one of Jack Chick's tracts as a Catechism, and is about as notable as a specific tract (as opposed to "Jack Chick" in general; and the analogy holds, as there is a "Malachi Martin" article, in which this should be a bibliographic mention - not an article of its own) Edit, note: the article itself doesn't represent much of what is in the book, claiming instead that it is "church history from Martin's perspective"; this snippet view from Google books is useful to see.. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 02:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know whether the claims within the book are accurate, as I had never heard of it until a few minutes ago. Nevertheless, we need to distinguish between describing Malachi Martin's claims and endorsing those claims. It is certainly possible to discuss a controversial book as making certain claims without Wikipedia taking a position as to whether the book's claims are accurate. As indicated by news articles such as [1] and [2], and references in books such as [3], it seems that the book may indeed be notable enough to warrant an article here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 3 sources Metropolitan90 just provided, two serious reviews and an in depth discussion (critical of the book) show its notability. Material from these sources should be added to the article. Borock (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I think the nomination was made in good faith, I also think the subject does meet WP:GNG. Though more a matter of naming convention, I wonder if it would be worth renaming the article to The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (book) to make it very clear that the article is about a book and not about the actual decline and fall of the Roman Catholic Church or some broader theory (or even fringe theory as the nom suggests) about the concept. That way the article is defined as being about a particular book and the WP:N of that book (against WP:BK) can be resolved from there. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A sufficiently notable book (as shown by Metropolitan90's sources) by a clearly notable author. Here[4] is the Kirkus review of the book, which can also be added to a "critical reception" section.. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find those sources? I searched Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar and came up empty (although I got enough refs on Gibbon to fill a truck). In any case, I withdraw my nomination in face of unanimous opposition. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 02:02, 8 September 2012 (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.