Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boring 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 no consensus. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Boring Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Popular spinoff to Horrible Histories. But there appear to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG. North America1000 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A series of books, which is being kept in print (presumably becasue the books are selling) 10 years after publication is likely to be notable. I am not sure why this had a tag about ACtive Arbiration remedies.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Merge WP:PRESERVE. Part of a notable franchise. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Horrible Histories. Make a section like Horrible Histories. Excelse (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it's clearly notable, I cannot understand how the nom was made or garnished one delete !vote. But it does need work. This is a series off from the Horrible Histories series and should cover the whole series with more sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Can any of the keep !voters provide even one reliable source that provides significant coverage for this topic, the Boring Bible book series? I searched extensively, but they don't seem to exist. Sorry, but the arguments for article retention equate to WP:ITSNOTABLE thus far, and are not backed with any sources to qualify the stance. Notice how custom source searches such as those listed below are providing no significant coverage. Just because a series of books exists does not automatically mean that said series is notable. Furthermore, a series of books is not automatically notable by virtue of being a series. As I stated above, it just does not appear that WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG is met at all, or even able to be met. Fact is, there is not enough coverage available in reliable sources to even properly verify content presently in the article. North America1000 14:59, 9 February 2018 (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.