Deletion of Another Gospel (book)

Comment: per the "subject of instruction at multiple ... post-graduate programs" clause at , and the references made to it in other works. Alleged lack of NPOV isn't a deletion issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: You can't get any info if you try to click the link University of Pennsylvania... it brings you to the WP article of Penn. Noted the "RELS133"? Try search "Penn RELS133" - it's a course number. I think the creator meant to say that the book is mentioned in the course content - the link I found was dead, though, so it shall prolly get removed for unverifiable. But even if the ref is removed, it is still a widely cited work and seems to have enough notability for inclusion. For the content of the article, as long as they are properly attributed, they are fine, no real need to portrait the author and/or publisher. Check Mein Kampf - we dont really need to say "a book by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi leader and the most evil mass murderer in human history". Some of the "POV" you mentioned was not even included in the article - how in the world can they make the article POV if they are not even in the article? I'm getting puzzled... Sorry, I don't mean to be all "I R TEH JASTIS", but this seems to me to be getting more and more like a blatant case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I'm not convinced yet regarding the notability; just because two universities have courses using this book doesn't seem enough.  My main concern regarding  is that the book is a vehicle for advancing a specific version of the Christian faith, delivering negative value judgments on numerous other faiths with which "mainstream Christianity" disagrees.  If this article is salvageable, I would propose it would need to discuss the background of the author's religious views, why the author's beliefs impel him to write negatively about what he considers to be "cults", outside critical reaction to the book, etc.  That would seem to point toward expanding the subject to the point that this book would be more appropriately included in Wikipedia as a source in articles about evangelical Christianity, rather than being a separate article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: If you look at , it lists 5 criteria for book notability, only one has to be met to establish notability, and this book meets at least two (#1 and #4). I haven't independently verified those claims, but unless proven false, this book is notable. As for the POV problems, I agree that the ''book'' is probably POV, but the ''article'' is not. If anyone thinks the article has problems, those can be fixed without deleting.&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)