This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The proposal to delete this article is nonsense. This is an important concept in medieval studies. We can argue about whether the author of the cited work is notable (I think he is) but there can be no argument about the notability of the enormous body of medieval literature (and not only literature) which he and many others are researching. The importance of the Bible for the middle ages is indisputed, but the overwhelming majority of the medieval population had no access to the Bible itself, nor to the Latin exegetical tradition. So most people's world view was shaped by vernacular adaptations which were quite different beasts. This cannot be non-notable - and I think the scholar who created the terminology by which we describe it can also hardly be described as non-notable. However it is true that many other scholars should be named here - this has a long way to grow. --Doric Loon 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]