Talk:List of apologetic works

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bibliographies Mid‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Is there any rationale for creating this list, it looks pointless to me. ping 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Honestly, would anyone like to defend this list? The only article of importance that links to it is Christian apologetics; there's no explanation for what is included on this list, or why it is limited to 20th century works. -- llywrch 21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an excellent list for people who want more detail. ken 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

I the idea of a "list of apologetic works" is fine, but the current contents are problematic. Besides Llywrch's point about the lack of pre-20th century works, I would note following from Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." The other lists in Category:Lists of controversial books appear to follow this guideline. It seems unlikely to me that most of the works currently in this list will ever have their own articles. EALacey 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on linking authors and works with articles, and it's clear that the authors are far more likely to have articles than their works are. Maybe changing this article into a "List of religious apologists" would be more in keeping with the guidelines? EALacey 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- bibliographies are acceptable but most of the books should have their own articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria and compare Oz books and List of books by P. G. Wodehouse, for example) or be deserving of one under WP:BK (most here are not). I'd also note that Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, and John Frame are noticeably absent from this list. I'm going to nominate this for deletion. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of apologetic works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725065430/http://www.apologeticscourses.com/TextBooks to http://www.apologeticscourses.com/TextBooks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]