Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible Review

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 merge to Biblical Archaeology Review. The keep argument was essentially that the publication has been cited in newspapers. Being cited does not of itself meet GNG. No specific source was offered with significant coverage and the analysis of newspaper mentions by jps was not challenged in any meaningful way SpinningSpark 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NJOURNAL, I believe. Severely lacking sources. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hershel Shanks. Bible Review is a defunct journal, been dead for 15 years. There isn't enough here to warrant a stand-alone article. Also seems to be part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden that includes the topics linked in the article. Its founder does appear to be notable though. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Biblical Archaeology Review, its sister publication. BR is best treated as a relatively-short-lived offshoot but was never really important in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Biblical Archaeology Review if that article is kept, otherwise to Biblical Archaeology Society. --Randykitty (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Biblical Archaeology Review, failing that to Biblical Archaeology Society. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a perusal of the Newspapers link shows multiple diverse times this journal was quoted in popular newspapers. WP:NJOURNAL is inapplicable, as this was not a scholarly journal but a popular magazine, so GNG applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked through those, but found that more than 50% were just hits to different newspapers using the words "bible review" rather than the publication. Those that do mention the publication seem to be doing in only a citation style. I don't see how to write an article about this. I can't even tell if this is a different publication from Biblical Archaeology Review. I cannot find any sources which explain why its publication stopped, for example. The sources are just not forthcoming for actual article writing, as far as I'm concerned. What sources would you use? jps (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 50% where Bible Review, this subject, is used as a source cited by popular newspaper articles on topics. Obviously, there's going to be redundancy, and I have no idea why the Spokesman-Review shows up so often, but there's a decent enough stub here. I suspect the magazine's own archives would explain its demise, or maybe BAR does once it gets folded back into there. A merge into BAR isn't a terrible outcome, but I think the evidence supports a standalone short article. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep WP:NJOURNAL does not apply, as this was not a journal. If the article can be sourced to the newspapers articles mentioned by Jclemens, then it should be kept. In its current form, it lacks any sources. Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens and Dimadick.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Biblical Archaeology Review; given what little there is to say about it, it makes more sense to (briefly) cover this there than in a stand-alone page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it has been cited by newspapers numerous times.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2021 (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.