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.  Sandstein  23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Spade[edit]

Bible and Spade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This has had a notability tag on it since August and the question has been raised on the article talk page as to why.If it is, as stated, an archaeological journal, I would expect it to be referenced in other archaeological books and articles, especially as it seems to have been around since 1972. I think it fails our notability criteria. dougweller (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —dougweller (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable journal as it does not have 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Springnuts (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It took me less than a minute to find one with Google News. Are you saying you searched and no RS'es exist, or that you don't see any in the article at the moment? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why didn't you link it? I can't find one with Google News. Just a mention of a hit doesn't establish notability. And yes, there are none in the article. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While searching on Google, I found several pages citing the journal, but I don't have access to the right databases to do a comprehensive search. Still, the magazine has been around for ages and is published by a reliable publisher. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep -- This looks like a respectable academic journal to me (though with its own POV). It is not new; has a respectable academci publisher; and an academic editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- what makes Associates for Biblical Research an academic publisher? They are a Creationist organisation, and according to their website [1]"BIBLE and SPADE is a non-technical quarterly publication published by the Associates for Biblical Research. It is written from a scholarly and conservative viewpoint, supporting the inerrancy of the Biblical record" and "Archaeological evidence, properly interpreted, upholds the history of the Bible. Bible and Spade shows you how!" I don't see the publisher as either reliable or academic, and 'being around for ages' it not evidence of notability. dougweller (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After amending comments above -- still a Keep -- I accept that my description above was inaccurate; hence the changes. I had not gone beyond the article. The journal has its own POV, an extreme conservative evangelical one. The position of inerrancy of the Biblical record is a legitimate one. My own position is not so strong, but that is my POV. I do not believe the doctrines of the Latter Day Saints or the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they too are widely held views. Accordingly, WP does not take its own POV and delete articles on them because many editors (like me) do not believe them. The present article is a mere stub, but that is no reason for deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being a nonsense journal is not a reason for deletion. It does not have to be referenced by archaelogical journals. That sounds like tautological reasoning (how do we decide what counts as a archaelogical journal, do they all have to referenced by other archaelogical journals). Notability would be lacking if it was found this journal wasn't followed by its target audience (biblical archaelogists). Which does not seem to be the case.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google News search for "Bible and Spade" finds plenty of relevant hits. this one for example. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That one shows notability for Wood, I'm not disputing that. It briefly mentions Bible and Spade, but that's all. We need more. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which relevant notability guide do you believe this article does not meet? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Furthermore, Google Scholar appers to have plenty of citations to Bible and Spade. Why is this being nominated again? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, why don't you link any? Yes, there a lot of hits directly to the journal, they don't have anything to do with notability. Quite a few hits directly to Bible & Spade: intro to biblical archaeology - Caiger S L, 1936 and others indirectly to it, eg Shifting Sands By Thomas W. Davis. Can we please have some sources we can discuss here, not just claims of Ghits? And when was it nominated before? This shows up as the first nomination, a Google search of Wikipedia doesn't show it as being nominated before. dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that per WP:BEFORE it's your job, as nominator, to make a good faith effort to search for sources, but I'll help you out. google news results 4-8, 10, and 14 appear to reference this journal. In a Google Scholar search, the first 13 citations all appear to be articles from this journal. Google Books references inclue one, two, three (but no preview), four, five (snippet only), six, seven (snippet again, sorry), and eight... and that should be enough, no? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and to clarify the "again" bit, I meant "What was the stated rationale for this deletion, in light of this easy pile of evidence that awaited?" rather than "Why is this being nominated for deletion a second time?" Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Not impressed by these cites - they do not support notability of the journal. Where are the sources discussing the impact of this journal?. A directory would certainly need to list this journal - but WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The problem is not article quality or truth/falsehood - just notability of the topic. Springnuts (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment This 'easy pile of reference' includes things such as "gardening: Turning over a new LEAF!(Features) Subscription - Coventry Evening Telegraph - HighBeam Research - Apr 21, 2001 And the figure of St Fiacre, the patron saint of gardeners, again carved by Andy from a cherry tree, complete with rosary beads, Bible and spade. ..." - an article about a statue of a figure holding a Bible and spade! Jclemens has done an indiscriminate search to show lots of hits that include the phrase, a few of which may be about the journal, who knows, but many are about the earlier book or just a general use of the phrase. This is not at all helpful and is used to accompany what looks like a personal attack on me. dougweller (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply If you'll read my posting more carefully, you'll see that I specified WHICH hits were relevant. You appear to have ignored my listing and cherry-picked the irrelevant ones, and then accuse me both of an "indiscriminate search" and an attack on you. This conduct, the prior refusal to seek out sources supporting notability, and the sheer number of edits you've made to this AfD call into question your motivation in arguing so strenuously for this deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I admit that I missed what you were doing. But 'Sword of the Lord' publishing? Quality is what counts here, as I'm sure you know. As for strenuous, no, I'm not being strenuous, but I am trying to be precise. I could just as easily say you are arguing strenuously for a keep, but what would be the point of saying that? There have been some clear errors, which is frustrating, ie people saying it's published by a reputable academic publisher because the article mistakenly said it was published by Sage, or the WorldCat search below. And above, you found a good article but it was all about Wood with just a brief mention of the publication. Do you really think that was good enough to show notability? dougweller (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Actually, yes, I do think that being cited in a variety of popular religious writings establishes sufficient notability. The magazine has a POV, but it's been around for a while (i.e., it doesn't appear to be a flash-in-the-pan) and is referenced by multiple other independent sources sharing that POV. I know others hold in good faith a much more narrow view of the GNG than I do--I just don't happen to agree. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficiently notable. Has about 50 to 100 hits on WorldCat--- hard to tell exactly, because it was published with break of many years & libraries arent careful about reporting accurately for things like that. since this represents only relatively mainstream institutions, and does include places like Harvard and Haverford, I conclude its a reasonably respectable journal, from a biblical inerrancy point of view. It's not much concerned with creationism, by the way, rather with OT history--check the table of contents. [2]. DGG (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment DGG, please look again, I can't find more than a handful. Most of those are pre-1972 when publishing began, some of the later ones just use the phrase and aren't about the journal, at least one is an audio by Wood, etc. In fact, when you restrict the search to journals and 1972 and after, you get exactly 3 hits. I don't see Harvard or Haverford by the way. dougweller (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten into a more standard format - though I still believe it is NN and should be deleted as indicated above. Springnuts (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • NOTE TO THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS PUBLISHED BY AN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER*** It is not published by Sage, that claim was added less than an hour before I put this up for AfD. It is published by Associates for Bible Research [3], an organisation dedicated to proving the historical reliability of the Bible. dougweller (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment And to those of us looking at the GNG, this matters not in the least. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• fwiw I corrected that mistake, but I think the Sage claim was a good faith error when the info box was added - probably the info box was copied from another journal and the Sage info just got carried over with it. It makes no difference to this debate. Springnuts (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure it was a good faith error. It may have led people to a keep vote if they based it on being a Sage publication, I certainly would never nominate something published by Sage. But it probably makes no difference to the outcome of this debate. And thanks for catching it. dougweller (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2008 (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.