Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boomer Bible: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:57, 30 November 2019

The Boomer Bible

[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)

Searches for references, citations or even mentions of the book on Google, WorldCat and JSTOR don't turn up significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore I don't think this meets the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NBOOK two reviews is enough. The article already cites one: [1] Here's another review (quite negative, so clearly independent), visible via ProQuest: Crumm, David (December 22, 1991). "Boomer Bible is big bust". The Province. p. C16. Along the way are thousands of Andrew Dice Clay-style jokes that seem determined to offend everyone about everything: Mexicans are called spics a lot; praying is called braying; a communion liturgy becomes a toast; and the opening line of Rock of Ages is recast as: "Rocks of cocaine, crushed for me, Let me wash my mind in thee." Are you laughing yet? Facing this mess could drive thousands of fallen-away Christians directly back to orthodoxy. Haukur (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Two reviews would be usually ok, but those reviews are on the very edge of what is reliable. Publisher's Weekly publishes reviews of a lot of books, and is not very picky. The other review is also very short (~300 words) and from The Province, "a daily tabloid newspaper published in British Columbia", a borderline quality source. So yes, two reviews, but of very borderline reliability. If someone can find a third one, maybe I'll change my vote, but for now, that's IMHO not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On newspapers.com there is a lot of coverage to be found. Here's some: [2][3][4][5] Haukur (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads more like advertising than an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''Weak delete'''. Two reviews would be usually ok, but those reviews are on the very edge of what is reliable. Publisher's Weekly publishes reviews of a lot of books, and is not very picky. The other review is also very short (~300 words) and from [[The Province]], "a daily tabloid newspaper published in British Columbia", a borderline quality source. So yes, two reviews, but of very borderline reliability. If someone can find a third one, maybe I'll change my vote, but for now, that's IMHO not enough.  --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 10:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 *:On newspapers.com there is a lot of coverage to be found. Here's some: [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39785427/part_1_of_2/][https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39785444/part_2_of_2/][https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39785474/boomer_bible_gazette_article/][https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39785492/boomer_bible_north_county_times_part_1/] [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' This reads more like advertising than an encyclopedia article.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 00:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)