Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American King James Version


 * 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 redirect to List of English Bible translations. (non-admin closure)  J 947(c) (m) 03:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

American King James Version

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails WP:N, in particular WP:GNG. I've done the required due diligence, and as far as I can tell there appears to be no reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. Right now the article cites only a description of the AKJV, posted by its producer on a software repository page. Searches turned up only more of the same -- either a mention in passing, or other copies of the exact same wording by the producer posted to a variety of websites. No news organization, no published book, and no journal article appears to discuss the AKJV in any significant way. No source with "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability", that is "independent of the subject," as WP:GNG puts it, seems to exist. Alephb (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Keep This article on a modification of the King James (it switches in familiar modern words for archaic words to make the text easier for us moderns to read and understand) published as a searchable, online document is tricky because my searches show a large number of books, and a significant number of WP:RS daily newspapers using this version when they want to quote a Bible text.  When a Version of the bible is being widely used in books and media, it is reasonable for our readers expect to be able to look it up.  On the other hand, it wasn't reviewed the way a new translation would be, and there is little or nothing in the way on significant coverage of this version itself. (I did see brief descriptions of the method used in reliable-looking books).  We have a Category:King James Version editions, but no page dedicated to Versions of the King James Bible to redirect to. Nevertheless, my preference if for a redirect.   I think the best solution is to add a subhead King James Bible  to the 7  subheads now under King James Version and do a selective merge/redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And consider creating a page of King James Version editions, to which this and some of the pages in  Category:King James Version editions could be merged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which newspapers are using the American King James Version? Alephb (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Philadelphia Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Telegraph Herald, The Journal Gazette, and more. Just ordinary, American papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, just to be clear -- are you arguing that the American King James Version meets the WP:GNG standard, or that we should ignore the GNG standard in this case? Alephb (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly not; I intended to say that there is a little coverage in books and in denominational publications that can be used to source an article, but I think a redirect to a sentence or two in an article or two on Later versions of the King James Bible would be useful to our readers, and there are sources to justify it. the fact that books and newspapers cite this version is support for the usefulness-to-readers argument.  As is the fact taht the article does get views, unlike many articles that come to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All right. Let's take the Philadelphia tribune. Where does it use the American King James Version? Like what day, what article, what author? A specific citation would help, because otherwise the claim is fairly hard to believe. Did you find this via reading in print or a web search? If it's a web search, can you direct me toward it so I can see for myself?Alephb (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"A refrain one hears more often than he or she cares to is "It's in the Bible." You know how some people will find a verse in the Bible to justify whatever they believe, right or wrong. Thus, I was referred to Exodus, Chapter 3:22 in the American King James version of the Bible that reads: "But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourns in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment and you shall put them on your sons, and on your daughters; and you shall spoil the Egyptians." For those borrowers who refer to this verse to justify their behavior, its interpretation has been taken out of context, with their focus being totally on the word "borrow." While borrowing things may not have had a Biblical basis, it was a practice that was widespread, back in the day." A neighborly act no longer in style,Kittrels, Alonzo. Philadelphia Tribune; Philadelphia, Pa. [Philadelphia, Pa]04 Dec 2011: 3B. [A neighborly act no longer in style Kittrels, Alonzo. Philadelphia Tribune; Philadelphia, Pa. [Philadelphia, Pa]04 Dec 2011: 3B. ] "It wasn't easy to stop our old ways of laughing at each other's mistakes and apparent weaknesses. The Bible gave us strength: "Charity ... rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (I Corinthians 13:4, 6, American King James Version). This assured us that God's love corrects firmly and patiently, without humiliation. God shines His law through our hearts and minds, and there is a balance between His moral law and His unconditional mercy. ", Breaking the mocking habit," White, Louise. The Christian Science Monitor; Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]19 Apr 2012 " Even though scripture does not say much about singleness, what it does say is powerful. I Corinthians 7 contains the following verses about singleness:"He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married cares for the things of the world, how he may please his wife." (American King James version, verses 32-33)"'', "People of Praise: Churches must embrace, encourage single people" Cook, Katia. Journal - Gazette; Ft. Wayne, Ind. [Ft. Wayne, Ind]30 Jan 2011: D.6., and more, but that gives you an idea. Look, I do take your point, the article is unsourced, and there is not much in the way of WP:INDEPTH on this version.  All I am saying is that when an edition of the Bible is widely cited in newspapers and books, our readers are likely to expect a sentence or two about what that edition/version is.  I see it as part of Wikipedia's role in settling the sort of bickering that can break out after a beer or two over any assertion of "fact."  We have all heard silly arguments that turn on which translation of a Bible verse is "right."  And someone else says: no, no, the Vulgate hat that wrong but the King James says.... I am arguing that at the point in that argument when someone googles this American Version up to prove a point, and the other guy says: That's not what the King James says...  We have a duty to enable a third guy to check out what the American James Bible Verison is, so that everyone can go home friends and sleep it off. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it hard to believe? It was an early-ish online bible, and I have no trouble believing that people who want a bible passage nowadays google it. All I did was to key "American King James vrsion" into proquest
 * Okay, thanks for the references. That is helpful. The reason I was confused was that I had run both a Google News and a Google News Archive search and found nothing in either one for "American King James Version," so it was very strange to hear someone tell me that it is widely used in newspapers. Next time I nominate an article for deletion (if there is a next time) I'll also add Proquest to my list of tools to try. I'd never heard of it. I guess the Google News searches are not nearly as comprehensive as I thought. Alephb (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Alephb, Proquest is unfortunately behind a paywall, as is the Highbeam news archive, if you want to read whole articles. However, Highbeam can be searched by anyone and snippets of articles come up, you can see a few on the toolbar at the top of this page, a very convenient way to check for notability.  And, of sources, no news archive finds everything; I regularly find WR:RS media cited in old WP articles,  news articles that turn out to be real, but that didn't turn up in archive searches.  Pleasure working with you.19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)


 * Delete Odd situation. this Bible gets cited, it gets used and recommended by churches and writers that are or that appear to be within the King James Only movement, and I would like to be able to keep it in some form because explaining to readers the nature of any  somewhat widely translation of the Bible is useful.  But I can't find an independent source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could replace it with a redirect to List of English Bible translations, where it already gets a mention. Alephb (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of English Bible translations, as per User:Alephb's excellent suggestion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - I agree, it doesn't seem to pass WP:V, but seems like a likely search term. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possible keep -- I thought that all Bible translations were notable. This appears not merely to be an edition, with American spelling, but updated vocabulary, presumably removing obsolete words and those whose meaning has changed.  That makes it a translation, not a mere edition.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GNG for the standards of what is notable. "Being a Bible translation" is not in there as a substitute for significant coverage in reliable sources. Alephb (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect Not substantially notable enough to remain outside of a list. L3X1 (distænt write)  22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.