- 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. The editors calling for deletion make the powerful argument that independent, reliable sources are lacking. Those opining for "Keep" counter with subjective claims of importance and concerns about systematic bias. Though such claims are tenuous without at least a some sourcing to back them up they cannot be completely discounted and at least a couple of mentions have been adduced. Given the tenor of the discussion, therefor cannot see that a consensus for deletion has been established at the present time. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Burning Bush
- The Burning Bush ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed theological journal in singapore", which does not show notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- it is in the Christian periodical index http://cpi.acl.org/cpititles.html
-
WP:NJournals has the provisions:
- "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."
- Considering its worldwide circulation, 20 year history, and 1 of the 2 theological journals in Singapore, out of over a dozen institutions, I'd say it's pretty successful. Further, it contains a ton of historically and ecclesiastically valuable content such as a primer on the doctrine of preservation, festschrifts, memoirs, chronological milestones, legal exchanges (with reference to Singapore Judiciary), and annotated critiques of academics' works in universities and seminaries.
- "It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources."
- for these reasons, I propose KEEP
Bpc.sg (
talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Bpc.sg, in your first point you seem to argue that NJournals is only an essay. That is correct, but if we choose to ignore NJournals and apply WP:GNG instead, then The Burning Bush fails even more. A 20-year history does not necessarily make something notable, if it hasn't been noted in all that time. This seems to be the case here, as GScholar indicates just a few citations to articles in this journal. The "worldwide distribution" is rather modest, I fear. WorldCat indicates that just 5 US libaries list it in their holdings (with a world-wide count of 8 or so). Being one of only 2 theological journals in Singapore is not a valid claim to notability. And whether or not we find the content valuable is besides the point: what we need is that independent reliable sources remark on the content (whether in a positive or a negative way). The second point you quote from NJournals is irrelevant if the journal is not notable (it just says that the journal's homepage can be used as a source for non-controversial info if the journal is notable). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah ok I get your point on the independent reliable sources now. Actually it is very hard to find them because there are no independent historians at the moment. Everything, usually positive contributions, is usually done under the auspices of the church, college or denomination. More often than not, it is only when there are negative remarks that such sources surface. Have added in. Bpc.sg ( talk) 02:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. To be honest, if I had thought it was notable, I would have created the article myself. I saw it listed as a redlink at List of theology journals, and considered creating it, but I didn't think it would meet the notability threshold. Its publisher, Far Eastern Bible College, certainly does, and I created that article instead. St Anselm ( talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to Far Eastern Bible College. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- This has the feel of a minor (but regionally significant) theological journal. Theology being something of a niche subject cannot be expected to appear in general arts citation indices, which are in any event much less well developed than scientific ones. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Notable theology journals aqre routinely included in, for example, Scopus of the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. There is also the specialized ATLA Religion Database, which contains many small theology journals and is specialized in this "niche subject". This journal is in none of these databases, not even the ATLA one. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Peterkingiron. This is the most important source for the (admittedly small) field of Asian Calvinism. The essay WP:NJournals says "Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject". Now, worldcat only shows 8 holdings, but that does include institutions in the Netherlands and Taiwan, and it's missing Harvest Bible College. St Anselm ( talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. But even if we assume that only 1 in 3 libraries is actually correctly listing their holdings of BB, we still have only 24 libraries subscribing worldwide, which is really a negligible number, even for a very specialized subject. There are quite a number of Calvinist theology libraries in the Netherlands, for example. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep-- Independent sources added. Scholarly articles are representative of college and has historical and eccleasiastical value. The journal also contain a wealth of articles relating to the Verbal Plenary Preservation debate. See ** http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/Textual_Criticism_101_Theological_Faith_Based_versus_Naturalistic_Rationalistic_Louis_M_Kole.pdf- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-24.
- Timothy Tow, "Death in the Pot!," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 35-37.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "A Plea for a Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 9 (2003): 1-15.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or "Yea Hath God Said?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 48-53.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "John Owen on the Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 74-85.
- Prabhudas Koshy, "Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt Septuagint," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 93-95.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-98.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
- Timothy Tow, "‘My Glory Will I Not Give to Another’ (Isaiah 42:8)," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 67-68.
- Carol Lee, "A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 69-81.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 82-97. Bpc.sg ( talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but I don't see any "independent sources" that you mention above in the article. The list of articles that appeared in BB does not prove anything either. GScholar (which does include even minor theological journals, because it strives to be complete) does not show any evidence that any of these articles have been noted outside of the BB itself. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I had not been aware of this journal until I found a notice that this article was nominated for deletion. I find the journal to be a distinctive and significant voice for a specific theological circle. I have already cited journal in a Wikipedia article and expect to cite the journal again. It is linked to a number of other articles here. I may not agree with all of it, but I think it deserves a place here in Wikipedia.
Pete unseth (
talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would you by any chance have any policy-based reason to keep this article, apart from the fact that you like it? -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - File this under the policy of iAR if you wish, but I am loath to delete articles on journals. We are a source-driven website, and if any journal is used as a source there should exist an opportunity to make that title a blue link with at least a minimal explanation of the nature of the journal being cited. Since this publication has, in one form or another, been around since 1971, it is not one of those less defensible promotional pieces for brand new academic journals, but is rather a good faith effort at providing historical coverage. For this reason, I advise we look the other way on sourcing in this specific case for the good of the encyclopedia. Carrite ( talk) 12:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wile I sympathize with this sentiment, it makes deciding which journals to keep and which ones not a very difficult and subjective one: all one needs to do is create some references here and there on WP and, presto! A notable journal is born. In the present case, I think some of today's edits argue that this is merely the house journal of a (small) seminary. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Peterkingiron, ( talk), Pete unseth, and Carrite for your appraisal. I think there is no question on the historical and ecclesiastical value. To build on Carrite's point, I think Wikipedia does allow for subjective appraisal since a given set of "objective" rules cannot be all-encompassing. What Carrite said echoes the expert opinion of professional archivists I've spoken to in real life. Because appraisal is both an art and a science, a checklist, while it is good, can only provide a guideline. It is ultimately up to humans to make the call. I applaud Randykitty's call to stay objective but not everyone is as objective as you are. For example, Calvary Baptist Church in Bucyrus, Ohio [1] chose to link to [2] instead of [3]. The same goes for [4] (p3) (it's reproduced).
[5] does link to them on at least 4 items under on the left navigation menu: Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Divine Inspiration, Divine Preservation, Divine Identification. [6] (p5) is not listed in any citation count. Also, [7], [8] (p349), [9] (p116)
I think this journal is quite influential in the subject area of verbal plenary preservation, given the prodigious output on the topic so much so that it has been criticized. With regards to the articles, topics relating to John Sung, Calvin [10] (from Calvin Seminary!), confessionalism and revivalism in the BPC by third party ( http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The%20Burning%20Bush%20Vol%203%20No%202.pdf), as well as timelines in http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/TheBurningBushVol18No2.pdf all have rich historical value to Singapore church history and ecclesiastical importance to Calvinist and reformed circles in the region.
Since under WP:NJournals, only one criteria needs to be met:
- The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
- The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
- The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, I would say it pretty much hits 1 and 3: influential in VPP subject, serves a historical purpose to Singapore church history.
Bpc.sg ( talk) 17:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Bpc.sg, but given there is only a handful of citations and such, I cannot consider this influential and even less historical. It's as wide a miss of NJournals as can be, not to mention GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The policy regarding
WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it
Pete unseth (
talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- NJournals indeed mentions that, but in order for that to apply, we need objective evidence that it is indeed influential, for example by being highly cited (relative to its field). Theoloy is a low citation-density field, but even taking that into account, I don't see any evidence that this has any influence on the field of theology at all, not even in its narrow subject matter. I am all for a greater number of articles on non North American topics, but in order to remain a serious encyclopedia, we need sources and independent evidence. -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The policy regarding
WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it
Pete unseth (
talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete would be my recommendation, I would have expected some decent coverage after twenty years. I reject the non-standard approach that the keepers are trying to apply. Yes, there can be exceptions in exceptional cases, I don't see any evidence that this is one of them. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. The editors calling for deletion make the powerful argument that independent, reliable sources are lacking. Those opining for "Keep" counter with subjective claims of importance and concerns about systematic bias. Though such claims are tenuous without at least a some sourcing to back them up they cannot be completely discounted and at least a couple of mentions have been adduced. Given the tenor of the discussion, therefor cannot see that a consensus for deletion has been established at the present time. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Burning Bush
- The Burning Bush ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed theological journal in singapore", which does not show notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- it is in the Christian periodical index http://cpi.acl.org/cpititles.html
-
WP:NJournals has the provisions:
- "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."
- Considering its worldwide circulation, 20 year history, and 1 of the 2 theological journals in Singapore, out of over a dozen institutions, I'd say it's pretty successful. Further, it contains a ton of historically and ecclesiastically valuable content such as a primer on the doctrine of preservation, festschrifts, memoirs, chronological milestones, legal exchanges (with reference to Singapore Judiciary), and annotated critiques of academics' works in universities and seminaries.
- "It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources."
- for these reasons, I propose KEEP
Bpc.sg (
talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Bpc.sg, in your first point you seem to argue that NJournals is only an essay. That is correct, but if we choose to ignore NJournals and apply WP:GNG instead, then The Burning Bush fails even more. A 20-year history does not necessarily make something notable, if it hasn't been noted in all that time. This seems to be the case here, as GScholar indicates just a few citations to articles in this journal. The "worldwide distribution" is rather modest, I fear. WorldCat indicates that just 5 US libaries list it in their holdings (with a world-wide count of 8 or so). Being one of only 2 theological journals in Singapore is not a valid claim to notability. And whether or not we find the content valuable is besides the point: what we need is that independent reliable sources remark on the content (whether in a positive or a negative way). The second point you quote from NJournals is irrelevant if the journal is not notable (it just says that the journal's homepage can be used as a source for non-controversial info if the journal is notable). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah ok I get your point on the independent reliable sources now. Actually it is very hard to find them because there are no independent historians at the moment. Everything, usually positive contributions, is usually done under the auspices of the church, college or denomination. More often than not, it is only when there are negative remarks that such sources surface. Have added in. Bpc.sg ( talk) 02:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. To be honest, if I had thought it was notable, I would have created the article myself. I saw it listed as a redlink at List of theology journals, and considered creating it, but I didn't think it would meet the notability threshold. Its publisher, Far Eastern Bible College, certainly does, and I created that article instead. St Anselm ( talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to Far Eastern Bible College. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- This has the feel of a minor (but regionally significant) theological journal. Theology being something of a niche subject cannot be expected to appear in general arts citation indices, which are in any event much less well developed than scientific ones. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Notable theology journals aqre routinely included in, for example, Scopus of the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. There is also the specialized ATLA Religion Database, which contains many small theology journals and is specialized in this "niche subject". This journal is in none of these databases, not even the ATLA one. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Peterkingiron. This is the most important source for the (admittedly small) field of Asian Calvinism. The essay WP:NJournals says "Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject". Now, worldcat only shows 8 holdings, but that does include institutions in the Netherlands and Taiwan, and it's missing Harvest Bible College. St Anselm ( talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. But even if we assume that only 1 in 3 libraries is actually correctly listing their holdings of BB, we still have only 24 libraries subscribing worldwide, which is really a negligible number, even for a very specialized subject. There are quite a number of Calvinist theology libraries in the Netherlands, for example. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep-- Independent sources added. Scholarly articles are representative of college and has historical and eccleasiastical value. The journal also contain a wealth of articles relating to the Verbal Plenary Preservation debate. See ** http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/Textual_Criticism_101_Theological_Faith_Based_versus_Naturalistic_Rationalistic_Louis_M_Kole.pdf- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-24.
- Timothy Tow, "Death in the Pot!," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 35-37.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "A Plea for a Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 9 (2003): 1-15.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or "Yea Hath God Said?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 48-53.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "John Owen on the Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 74-85.
- Prabhudas Koshy, "Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt Septuagint," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 93-95.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-98.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
- Timothy Tow, "‘My Glory Will I Not Give to Another’ (Isaiah 42:8)," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 67-68.
- Carol Lee, "A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 69-81.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 82-97. Bpc.sg ( talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but I don't see any "independent sources" that you mention above in the article. The list of articles that appeared in BB does not prove anything either. GScholar (which does include even minor theological journals, because it strives to be complete) does not show any evidence that any of these articles have been noted outside of the BB itself. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I had not been aware of this journal until I found a notice that this article was nominated for deletion. I find the journal to be a distinctive and significant voice for a specific theological circle. I have already cited journal in a Wikipedia article and expect to cite the journal again. It is linked to a number of other articles here. I may not agree with all of it, but I think it deserves a place here in Wikipedia.
Pete unseth (
talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would you by any chance have any policy-based reason to keep this article, apart from the fact that you like it? -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - File this under the policy of iAR if you wish, but I am loath to delete articles on journals. We are a source-driven website, and if any journal is used as a source there should exist an opportunity to make that title a blue link with at least a minimal explanation of the nature of the journal being cited. Since this publication has, in one form or another, been around since 1971, it is not one of those less defensible promotional pieces for brand new academic journals, but is rather a good faith effort at providing historical coverage. For this reason, I advise we look the other way on sourcing in this specific case for the good of the encyclopedia. Carrite ( talk) 12:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wile I sympathize with this sentiment, it makes deciding which journals to keep and which ones not a very difficult and subjective one: all one needs to do is create some references here and there on WP and, presto! A notable journal is born. In the present case, I think some of today's edits argue that this is merely the house journal of a (small) seminary. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Peterkingiron, ( talk), Pete unseth, and Carrite for your appraisal. I think there is no question on the historical and ecclesiastical value. To build on Carrite's point, I think Wikipedia does allow for subjective appraisal since a given set of "objective" rules cannot be all-encompassing. What Carrite said echoes the expert opinion of professional archivists I've spoken to in real life. Because appraisal is both an art and a science, a checklist, while it is good, can only provide a guideline. It is ultimately up to humans to make the call. I applaud Randykitty's call to stay objective but not everyone is as objective as you are. For example, Calvary Baptist Church in Bucyrus, Ohio [1] chose to link to [2] instead of [3]. The same goes for [4] (p3) (it's reproduced).
[5] does link to them on at least 4 items under on the left navigation menu: Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Divine Inspiration, Divine Preservation, Divine Identification. [6] (p5) is not listed in any citation count. Also, [7], [8] (p349), [9] (p116)
I think this journal is quite influential in the subject area of verbal plenary preservation, given the prodigious output on the topic so much so that it has been criticized. With regards to the articles, topics relating to John Sung, Calvin [10] (from Calvin Seminary!), confessionalism and revivalism in the BPC by third party ( http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The%20Burning%20Bush%20Vol%203%20No%202.pdf), as well as timelines in http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/TheBurningBushVol18No2.pdf all have rich historical value to Singapore church history and ecclesiastical importance to Calvinist and reformed circles in the region.
Since under WP:NJournals, only one criteria needs to be met:
- The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
- The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
- The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, I would say it pretty much hits 1 and 3: influential in VPP subject, serves a historical purpose to Singapore church history.
Bpc.sg ( talk) 17:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Bpc.sg, but given there is only a handful of citations and such, I cannot consider this influential and even less historical. It's as wide a miss of NJournals as can be, not to mention GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The policy regarding
WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it
Pete unseth (
talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- NJournals indeed mentions that, but in order for that to apply, we need objective evidence that it is indeed influential, for example by being highly cited (relative to its field). Theoloy is a low citation-density field, but even taking that into account, I don't see any evidence that this has any influence on the field of theology at all, not even in its narrow subject matter. I am all for a greater number of articles on non North American topics, but in order to remain a serious encyclopedia, we need sources and independent evidence. -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The policy regarding
WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it
Pete unseth (
talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete would be my recommendation, I would have expected some decent coverage after twenty years. I reject the non-standard approach that the keepers are trying to apply. Yes, there can be exceptions in exceptional cases, I don't see any evidence that this is one of them. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.