Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible and Spade (2nd nomination)

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 Bryant G. Wood#Bible and Spade. czar 19:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Spade (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 for one, as this is not an academic journal (and so WP:NME would be more appropriate -- but it fails that too), but WP:GNG also. Doesn't seem to be noticed by anybody other than its small fanclub. !Keep comments from the first AfD some 12 years ago seem to be of the sort that the commentators were misled by throwaway flash-in-the-pan stories, a bit of WP:SENSATION, and a weird reference to inclusion in libraries which does not serve us to write an actual article on the subject. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have come to believe that we need articles on quacks and cranks, precisely because these are an easy way of establishing their quackery/crankness. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFRINGE means that this is sometimes appropriate, indeed, but what WP:FRIND sources do you have that we can use to write this article? It's been languishing since the last AfD with sources that were claimed usable now consigned to dumpster heaps, apparently. We've moved past the idea of Wikipedia being a compendium and towards a model where Wikipedia pays attention to those things which have been referenced by third parties. This "journal", such that it is, really hasn't been noticed. jps (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no opinion on deletion of the article, but one option would be to merge into the Bryant Wood article, since he seems to be the driving force behind it.Achar Sva (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. Seems like a reasonable search term, perhaps. jps (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole article reads like an attack/vendetta piece. Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia, but regardless, I do not see the benefit of articles whose sole purpose is some weird form of social justice. --GorgeousJ (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you're reading the right article? This one is a stub that says barely anything. jps (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Selectively merge to Bryant G. Wood, where it is mentioned. Describing it there would adequately meet the purpose of documenting itsquackery/crankness raised above. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the article on Wood. It needs to be merged, not just redirected. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)`[reply]
• Comment: as a step towards deletion, which seems to be the consensus, I've merged some material from this article into a new section of the article on Bryant G Wood.Achar Sva (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bryant G. Wood. The SMERGE seems to have already boldly happened (how's that for a tortured wikiphrase?) and there is no evidence that the journal is notable independently from the person. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the article on Wood. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, seems to have happened already, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (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.