Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Letter Bible


 * 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Blue Letter Bible
Note, previously bundled in this Afd: Articles for deletion/SwordSearcher

Trivial RS mention and other than some assertion of it being 'one of the first' in the bundled Afd. Ghits are forums, howtos, and other discussions with no evidence of notability complicated by more than 1,000 websites distributing content. Use!notability TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks pretty notable to me. Lots of coverage/distribution and even a respectable mainstream newspaper like the Daily Telegraph links to it as a bible reference Halfmast (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a version of the Bible with hyperlink cross-references appears to be a notable measn of presenting the Bible. Hence an article on it is notable.  The article is a not wonderful one, but well worth keeping.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment unfortunately that doesn't meet the notability guidelines for websites and web-based software, which requires reliable source coverage. Please also see WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: THE AFD TEMPLATE ON THE ARTICLE HAS A RED LINK TO THIS PAGE. COULD SOME ONE CHECK THAT THE AFD NOMINATION HAS BEEN DONE CORRECTLY?  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Twinkle hiccuped. Appears fixed now TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Travellingcari. It's a valuable resource, but without sources we can't keep it. I don't think it will be impossible to find those sources - the BLB is widely recommended to students by Bible scholars, but I don't have any of those on hand right now. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, With respect, in voting for deletion I think you have the cart before the horse. We should delete if there are no sources showing notability (and this can be demonstrated). If the notability or source status of any article is unknown (and you acknowledge that there may be sources), then we may well be deleting a notable article! Deletion is a big step and we should not delete from an uninformed postion. To do otherwise is to open the flood gates to delete many quite possibly notable articles, just because no one has had time to cite the references. I think you need to demonstrate that there are no references. Let's assume innocent until proven guilty. Halfmast (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response, but no one has found these so called sources. That's the issue. You can't prove something doesn't exist TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but it's not as if he said "I have looked hard for sources and there seem to be none". He said "I don't think it will be impossible to find those sources". He seems to be voting to delete an article for which he thinks there may well be reputable sources showing notability. I respect his delete vote, but can't follow his rational for it. Halfmast (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I follow. I'd misunderstood you the first time I read your comment. FWIW, I haven't seen any RS coverage for the whole lot of these but there's no real good merge home. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Found Orlando Sentinel very quickly, there must be others. Honestly, the objection "no evidence of notability complicated by more than 1,000 websites distributing content" almost speaks for itself. A large network of distributors seems to meet criterion 3 at WP:WEB, independent of the fact that criterion 1 is likely to be met also. The article does need rescue, but not deletion. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (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.