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 no consensus. Nakon 03:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Patristics Series[edit]

Popular Patristics Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seams to be non-notable book series. It not even original work, but translation of old works. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reprints, new editions, etc. of old works (in this case, the ancient and early mediaeval Fathers of the Church) normally aren't notable, and the exceptions are notable because they've become standards in the field. There's no evidence that this very new series has obtained recognition comparable to the classic Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I oppose deletion of this article which I started.Reference to translations 5/4 lines above surely does not hold, as they are nineteenth century works and the English language (incl. its American subsidiary) has moved on. The translations appear for the most part to be not from Migne or earlier, but from twentieth century critical editions. At some point I may invoke the argument from authority as some of the translators are particularly eminent.----Clive Sweeting 23 January 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and find it a parent: Category:Works by the Church Fathers is not quite the right one, but is not too far off. Certain churches give considerable authority to patristic literature - the writings of Early Church Fathers. Publishing these in English translation is an important project. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: Interesting views on the notability, but that is not what the WP:GNG tells us. Do you know any reliable independent sources that significantly cover the subject? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment -- If were talking about one translation of one work, I might have doubts as to notability. However, we are talking about a series of volumes. There can be no question that the underlying works are notable. They are probably regarded as more important by Catholic and Orthodox Christians than Protestant ones, but even their theologians are likely to refer to them. With the original languages nowtaught much less than when I was at school, having these available in translation is important. I am unsure how far a modern critical edition is an advance ones produced long ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important and well known book series. It's hard to track down sources to attest to its notability, because searches are so cluttered with bibliographical citations, but here's a reference in Our Sunday Visitor: Link.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That source is not relevant, since it just mentions the "Popular Patristics Series" is passing, there is no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment'Popular Patristics Series' heads 'Bibliographies' section (3 items only listed before 'General Bibliography') on p.493 of The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth (himself a contributor to the series )online----Clive sweeting, 2 February 2015 post scriptum: I note that the article has been reduced by a contributor by almost half with consequent reduction in meaningfulness. I propose therefore that the earlier version be kept but that the reduced one be deleted----Clive sweeting 2 February 2015

• Still Keep -- I have restored some of the deleted text. It would be better still if a full list of the volumes could be provided. Some of the works may already have existing articles, and these should be linked. Many people do not read Latin and Greek and even fewer Coptic. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't vote twice. I stroke out your second vote. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2015 (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.