Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Original Sin

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

America's Original Sin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Coverage is routine. Article has been tagged for 3 years. It currently fails WP:BOOKCRIT criteria, as the 3 citations are 1) an inteview/transcript with the author, 2) written by the author, and 3) a non-neutral source. 90% of the article content was created by a blocked editor. Seems to be WP:PROMO. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. I found ~~three~~ two reviews: [1], ~~[2]~~, [3]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Fails WP:BOOKCRIT as already noted, and 2) isn't about this book. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also [4] in Friends Journal. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep per these sources showing a sufficiently significant book. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - Not sure what's wrong with Publisher's Weekly. Just because it's a positive review doesn't mean it's unusable. I can't access Aleatory Pondering's second source, but the third one looks good. Reviewed by the American Professional Chaplains here, although I'm not 100% for sure about that source. It looks like it passes WP:NBOOK, albeit just barely. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the nominator's dismissal of the substantial Publishers Weekly review. Briefly quoting the author is not the same as an unedited interview. The Emily Callon review identified by AleatoryPonderings is good, too. pburka (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots of reviews. I added two more: "'America's Original Sin is profound" from the Park City Daily News, and "All Christians should read this book" from the Springfield News-Leader. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reviews and coverage that have been found during this AFD and added to the article allow it to pass WP:NBOOK. I also agree that the PW article looks to be a perfectly valid source. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2016/01/29/january-29-2016-americas-original-sin/28859/ https://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/447796752/parables-for-understanding-a-nations-racial-sin https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/jim-wallis-on-racism,-white-privilege-and-the-bridge-to-a-new-a/7274148 Book so notable they interviewed him about it in places. Significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 23:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exceeds WP:NBOOK with numerous reviews, some of which have been added to the article, looks like another case of not digging around for sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The sources clearly exist and directly in detail. Archrogue (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Well-known book. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2020 (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.