Talk:The Taste of New Wine

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

New stub

I'm a bit flabbergasted not to find this book already in Wikipedia!

See

for some information. It was listed in 100 Christian Books That Changed the Century, hmmmm we don't have that either.

Taste of New Wine has never been out of print since 1965, and is currently available in both hard cover and paperback, a record few of the books we do honour with articles could match!

But then we don't have a lot about the ongoing small group movement within the Christian church, not a lot at all. Considering Rick Warren and Bill Hybels (and many others) both consider small groups the foundation of their theories on how to build up the church, this is a significant and related omission.

And nothing on the author, I've left a redlnk to Keith Miller (writer) but arguably he's mainly notable for this particular book. We could possibly redirect this article to his article if and when it's created, but I don't think so... IMO he would justify a biography, but if we have only one article connected to this book it would be better to redirect the writer to the book rather than the book to the author in this case. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Wikify tag

I've removed the Wikify tag. Frankly, I didn't consider it terribly helpful in the first place... the article was and is a stub, and its shortcomings are pretty obvious. A seasoned editor would have learned nothing from the tag, and a newbie nothing useful.

The article now has an infobox. It has no new wikilinks, nor section headings, but I think it's a good stub nevertheless. I think the lead was already OK. In that the person who tagged the article didn't bother to come here to the talk page and explain why they tagged it, I think it's justified to assume that the problems they saw have been addressed. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]