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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvific Law

[edit]

Non-notable PhD thesis. Sources are emails and other puff type sources. No coverage in any notable third party sources of the type that we would expect for an academic work with any weight. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This reads very much like a coatrack article. It is allegedly about someone's thesis. It tells us very little about the actual content of the work, but expands on blurb-like reviews praising it, from high ranking members of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems calculated to promote the opinions set forth in the thesis without explaining them. No opinion yet as to whether the thesis is in fact notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Salvific Law succeeds in demonstrating that the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches has a particular congruence with the Divine Will. The aim of both is salvation of souls. While this book will be of interest to theologians and canonists, it is also particularly suited for priests and even laity. The sections regarding the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance demonstrate how God's saving love for man is made manifest in Canon Law." This comment very well speaks about the content of the book. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this due to some comments about *another* article at the RS board - it seems to be part of a wider walled Garden of stuff around this author and his family (for example, check out Thomas Kuzhinapurath. I'm looking further into all of those articles but it all seems to be puff and misdirection at this stage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. At best it is an everyday piece of academic work. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Ph.D. thesis. VG ☎ 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTE Simynazareth (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable self-promotion.PelleSmith (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are two discussions of the book besides the blurbs. One, in L'Osservatore Romano, even is a general periodical, not one specifically on a narrow topic on canon law. The only question is the extent of the review in Aikya Samiksha. This meets the present wording of WP:BK. On the other hand, the book is a reprinted thesis, and does not appear of any particular notability. We may need to revisit that guideline. DGG (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, in L'Osservatore Romano, even is a general periodical, not one specifically on a narrow topic on canon law. That's a bit of a disingenuous claim - it's the newspaper of the holy see and as far as I can determine, the review was in the regional edition not the main Italian one. As for Aikya Samiksha, that is published by St. Mary’s Malankara Major Seminary as is this book. It's hardly independent cover to have your in-house journal cover a book published by your in-house publishers and written by a member of your organisation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads too much like an advert for a book of that title. Eliminate the letters and non-independent reviews, and there is nothing to indicate that the thesis (whatever it may actually be) has not gained traction outside of a few people who seem to be connected with the Vatican. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (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.