Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boomer Bible

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Keep. The book has received reviews from Publishers Weekly ([6]), The Province ([7]), The Philadelphia Inquirer ([8], [9]), Montreal Gazette ([10]), North County Times ([11]), and GayToday.com ([12]). This meets WP:GNG and exceeds WP:NBOOK criteria #1, having multiple reviews in independent reliable sources. MarkZusab (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2019 (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.