258:- If the book has indeed been reviewed by several established organizations and entities, it may indeed be notable. I'd be willing to consider that. The article, however, does not state this, nor does it give evidence of this. The burden of demonstrating notability is placed upon the text of the articles themselves and thus, by necessity, the editors who create and maintain them. If you can provide reliable sources of review, perhaps the OR concerns can be fixed, or the article reworded to satisfy the community... but you need to cite these sources before this discussion is closed, it can't just be claimed.
428:
393:
Roman Forum is not an online but a printed magazine. The
Catholic Herald which reviewed the book is a weekly published in the UK. The book has also been reviewed by the Midwest Book Review, the Library Journal, The Newsletter of the Secular Society in the UK, the Newsletter of the German Humanist
223:- The book has been reviewed in several media. I first learned about Double Cross in a review which appeared in Roman Forum (together with the Pope’s book on Jesus!). I have since found that Catholic media such as the Catholic Herald have written about it. As to
294:- I searched the site with Google and could find nothing under either the name of the book or the author. As for outright claims, it looks as though everything after the first sentence in 'the Church and the Jews' is an outright claim.--
431:
for the book excluding wikis, blogs, and most for sale sites came up with exactly 10 hits, none of which are reliable sources. (The
Catholic News Agency one is only a hit because of a reader postpended comment.)
397:
As to the suggestion concerning outright claims - the article is purely informative and does not make any claims of its own - whatever other people´s feelings are about books which criticise the
Catholic Church.
444:
If you can find the links for the LJ review and the
Catholic Herald review, and they are substantial reviews, it might well justify the article. I think that The Herald is the leading UK Catholic publication.
201:
and he's just about as notable for having his flight to Munich cancelled as for his book from what I found, it looks as though Theo Press has only one book, his, which strongly suggests it is self-published.--
83:
78:
290:
I see there is a reference -- a pretty useless one -- to The Roman Forum used in the article. It's unverifiable, so can't be used for any purpose. The Roman Forum is some sort of online newspaper -- see
87:
70:
368:
342:
110:
427:
doesn't archive anything from theromanforum.com, the citation thereto is incomplete so can't be verified readily even if I could find a paper source, and a
456:
436:
413:
383:
357:
332:
303:
276:
246:
210:
189:
157:
126:
52:
74:
227:– I would like to know which bits are “making claims outright” which are unacceptable. The article is meant to be descriptive only.
405:
66:
58:
184:
17:
271:
152:
242:
328:
474:
36:
473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
409:
379:
353:
139:
sets out five guidelines, of which a notable book should meet at least one. I don't see it doing that.
49:
401:
299:
230:
206:
424:
178:
122:
234:
259:
140:
238:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
375:
349:
295:
202:
172:
118:
452:
264:
171:. Article starts by summarizing the book, but then shifts to making claims outright.
145:
433:
320:
316:
224:
220:
198:
168:
136:
117:
Reason for nomination. Lack of notability. Few hits, most from extremist websites.
104:
324:
447:
467:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
292:
100:
96:
92:
423:
In the absence of reliable and independent sources.
369:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:). No further edits should be made to this page.
343:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
67:Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church
59:Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church
8:
367:: This debate has been included in the
341:: This debate has been included in the
315:for lack of reliable references. Fails
219:. (I am the article creator) As to
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
167:- A lot of this appears to be
1:
494:
197:-- not just because it is
470:Please do not modify it.
457:22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
437:13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
414:15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
384:00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
358:00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
333:21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
304:14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
277:13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
247:10:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
211:15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
190:15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
158:12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
127:03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
53:22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
425:The Wayback machine
44:The result was
416:
404:comment added by
386:
372:
360:
346:
249:
233:comment added by
485:
472:
399:
373:
363:
347:
337:
274:
269:
268:
262:
228:
187:
181:
175:
155:
150:
149:
143:
108:
90:
34:
493:
492:
488:
487:
486:
484:
483:
482:
481:
475:deletion review
468:
331:
272:
266:
265:
260:
185:
179:
173:
153:
147:
146:
141:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
491:
489:
480:
479:
462:
460:
459:
439:
388:
387:
361:
335:
327:
309:
308:
307:
306:
282:
281:
280:
279:
214:
213:
192:
161:
160:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
490:
478:
476:
471:
465:
464:
463:
458:
454:
450:
449:
443:
440:
438:
435:
430:
426:
422:
419:
418:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
395:
392:
385:
381:
377:
370:
366:
362:
359:
355:
351:
344:
340:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:, and likely
318:
314:
311:
310:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
278:
275:
270:
263:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
226:
222:
218:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
191:
188:
182:
176:
170:
166:
163:
162:
159:
156:
151:
144:
138:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
124:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
469:
466:
461:
446:
441:
420:
396:
390:
389:
364:
338:
312:
287:
255:
216:
215:
194:
164:
132:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
406:84.159.6.64
400:—Preceding
376:Fabrictramp
350:Fabrictramp
296:Doug Weller
229:—Preceding
203:Doug Weller
50:Flowerparty
394:Society.
119:Antonrojo
402:unsigned
267:Zahakiel
243:contribs
231:unsigned
148:Zahakiel
111:View log
442:Comment
434:GRBerry
391:Comment
288:Comment
256:Comment
235:Serioso
84:protect
79:history
429:search
421:Delete
325:danntm
313:Delete
195:Delete
165:Delete
133:Delete
88:delete
46:delete
321:WP:OR
317:WP:BK
225:WP:OR
221:WP:BK
199:WP:OR
169:WP:OR
137:WP:BK
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
453:talk
410:talk
380:talk
365:Note
354:talk
339:Note
323:.--
300:talk
239:talk
217:Keep
207:talk
123:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
448:DGG
374:--
371:.
348:--
345:.
186:Man
109:– (
455:)
412:)
382:)
356:)
302:)
245:)
241:•
209:)
174:TN
135:-
125:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
451:(
408:(
378:(
352:(
329:C
298:(
273:â–ş
261:â—„
237:(
205:(
183:-
180:X
177:‑
154:â–ş
142:â—„
121:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.