Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

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. kur ykh 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK -- the article as it stands contains virtually no references to sources other than the book itself and is almost wholly original research. Sure, it won an award from Christianity Today (though there is no source for this claim) -- but the relevant provision of WP:NBOOK specifies that a book must win a literary award to be notable on that ground. I can't see that it is notable on the other grounds specified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I suppose a redirect to Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be an okay compromise. This is practically a Cliff Notes version of the book, as opposed to an article about its impact, or about praise or criticism. However, the Council itself made the news; the book itself is just the explanation of their views, and this article is the explanation of the explanation. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Replace. "Cliff Notes version" is a good description. I recommend a major abbreviation of the article's text with the title being retained. The book contains some scholarly work by respected theologians and academicians. The topic is worthwhile and is highly controversial, hence of considerable interest to many. It should be rewritten as prose in a format similar to an academic book review. As written, it is much more like a professor's teaching notes. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like most WP articles, this is an unfinished product, a work in progress. Before we consider eradicating the tireless efforts of its author we should question its worth as a vehicle for information to our customer--the reader. Let us not forget the spirit of Wikipedia: sharing knowledge. Is the article encyclopedic and is it up to standards? The article is neutral, it says thing about the book. Consider: Does the current text state "RBMW says 'X Y Z'" or does it claim "X Y Z" is true, and then cites RBMW? The first is a neutral description of the book and can be checked for accuracy. The second would be claiming that Wikipedia follows RBMW as a source of truth, which would, of course, be non-neutral. The article states that RBMW says "X Y Z". It says things about the book, not things about truth. It is neutral.--Buster7 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. There are plenty of news sites reviewing this book. Dream Focus 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable because it is discussed in other sources such as Southern masculinity: perspectives on manhood in the South since Reconstruction. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are over 100 Google Scholar citations of the book. There are 393 books in Google Books referring to this book, even after self-citations in other books by Piper and/or Grudem are excluded. That's enough to make the book notable under Wikipedia:Notability (books) #1. The article needs work, but that's not a matter for AfD. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radagast. This book actually does seem to be "notable" in the real-world sense, not just the Wikipedia sense, as an often-refernenced, still debated text for a particular point of view within evangelical Christianity. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I was dissapointed not to able to find refutations of the "scholarship" in this book which are glaringly obvious to anyone with a good knowledge of God's word. However the work does seem to easilly satisfy our inclusion criteria. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly rename However, I would be happier it the title ended with "(book)" to indicate that the article is about a book, not directly about Biblical manhood etc. I would also like to see some discussion of reactions to it, reporting what has been said in reviews or other citations. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Move the article to Complementarian criticisms of evangelical feminism, and precisely the same text would no longer be describing RBMW, but would be quoting RBMW as if it were a reliable source of Complementarian criticism. Why delete a good summary of reliable sources if it can be moved somewhere else and be viable? But, then again, why even move the material? The question is: does the current text accurately, fairly and neutrally summarise the subject of the article? Isn't that what encyclopedia articles are supposed to do?--Buster7 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but edit I consider this a propagandistic POV essay on the concepts propounded by the book, as shown most clearly by the section "Reception", which reads in full: "Christian figures already sympathetic to Complementarianism have praised the collection." The article is in good measure a subtle example of soapbox, presenting the views on an issue under guise of discussing a book. I personally think the best way to deal with this article would be to delete it and start over, but I can;t rule out the possibility that it can be rewritten more suitably. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 14 May 2010 (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.