Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Catholic Catechism (Hardon)

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Catechism (Hardon)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is completely unsourced, and I could do little better. I found one book review of which what I could read was fairly negative. Besides that there were a few mentions in blog posts which appear to have been more about the authr than about the book. The rather purple claim that it "remains a standard work on Catholic orthodoxy even to this day" I could not verify; indeed, it's not all that clear that many people cared. Searching on this was somewhat hindered by numerous false hits if one didn't specify the exact title, and by Google's wish to give me something even if it didn't really match the search, so perha[s someone can salvage this, but thus far the only real source for the article would appear to be the book itself, maybe. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book seems to have a lot of citations on Google Scholar. It's possible that there might be in-depth coverage in some of them, but I'm not quite able to check through all of them quickly. I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up meeting WP:NBOOK, but I don't have affirmative evidence that it does. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moderately well-known even to non-catholics such as myself. I'm unhappy that this proposal includes the comment "I found one book review of which what I could read was fairly negative": whether a review is positive or negative is not material to a book's notability. I think it's fairly clear that the book meets criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." RomanSpa (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also worth noting that the book was commissioned by Pope Paul VI himself, which might on its own create notability. RomanSpa (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews, article has been updated to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination by the addition of references to significant coverage such as reviews in reliable secondary publications so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NBOOK after improvements.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has many reviews and citations, and the negativity of a review does not impact notability whatsoever.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:55, 3 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.