Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Public Domain 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 of the debate was delete. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  15:26, Dec. 25, 2005

Catholic Public Domain Version
Delete. Self-described vanity article: "new article written by the translator and editor of the CPDV (see SacredBible.org)" included in history. &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC) '''Relisting to December 25, 2005. Insert new comments below. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  07:08, Dec. 25, 2005 '''
 * Delete as per nom. It looks like a good project, but the vanity issue is a real one. KHM03 18:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote the article and I am working on the translation. However, I argue that the article should remain because it can be edited by others and because it includes a section on disadvantages of the translation. Every translation of the Bible should have an entry of some kind in the Wikipedia. --Ronconte 21:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Every Wikipedia article (except protected ones, of course) can be edited by anyone with a working web browser, but the policy still stands that Wikipedia is not a place to write articles about oneself or one's own work. I'm a published poet with a book available for sale, but there's nothing on Wikipedia about me, because no one has cared to take enough note.  I can't start an article with my name or the name of my book, just because others can edit it.  I wish you well with your project, and perhaps if it becomes notable enough, someone else will write an article about it.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Conflicted. Sounds like an extraordinarily interesting project, and verifiable, to boot.  But I suppose "interesting" isn't enough to establish "notable."  An interesting project idea doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia, but an interesting ongoing project with some discernable progress toward success does.  To me it all comes down to the fact that the person who started and runs the project probably does not have standing to judge notability for Wikipedia.  So what I'd really like to see is, either the article is deleted and if it is truly notable presumably some other, unrelated Wikipedians will create a new article on it, or else said Wikipedians will rework the article so that it's not written by someone with a vested interest in promoting the project. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And on a personal note, Ronconte, all the best to you on your project. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Having looked at this, I would find it more likely to be considered notable if some of the longer books were completed, such as one of the five books of Moses, or one of the Gospels. As it is, it's difficult to truly answer the question "Will this project still be around in a few years?" and "Will it actually be completed by 2009?"  Wikipedia does not need to look like sourceforge.net, full of pages for every incomplete project concept.  That's not to discount the value of the work already done; that's just to raise the question of whether or not enough work has been done to justify calling it "notable."  If CPDV has enough value to stand on its own without needing Wikipedia to bring attention to it, then it should be in Wikipedia.  If it needs Wikipedia in order to attract enough attention that the project will succeed, it does not belong here.  Kind of a catch-22, I know.  It should be up to the project itself to establish merit with its track record. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This article on the CPDV differs substantially from someone writing an article about themselves or about a book they wrote because it is a version of the Bible. It is 23% completed by a count of the verses. The Book of Psalms is completed; the Psalms is the one book of the Bible that is perhaps most often published on its own. Also, I read somewhere in Wikipedia that some articles are accepted by someone writing about their own work (can't find it now). Therefore, I suggest instead of deleting this article, changing it to a stub, so that other persons can begin a new article from that point. --Ronconte 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't a value judgment on the work, which may well be fantastic, on the level of St. Jerome himself. Should anyone who starts his own translation of the Bible get into an encyclopedia?  Wikipedia's policy answer to that question is "no."  Just as claiming to be God (a much more important sort of claim than making a Bible, don't you think?) isn't enough to get one put into an encyclopedia, making a version of the Bible is not enough, either.  Notability has to be established, and it cannot be established by the fiat of the writer/translator/worker in question.  Wikipedia records notability.  It doesn't create it.  It's not a place to get press for one's work.  If your work truly is notable, making some sort of verifiable impact on Biblical studies/religion/etc., someone else will start the article.  You suggest changing the article to a stub rather than deleting it, but is that because you fear that it wouldn't otherwise see the light of day?  If so, then that even more proves the point about the need for notability to be established by someone other than the one with a personal interest.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 14:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what you are saying but go ahead and delete it. --Ronconte 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I found this article while looking for a public domain Catholic Bible for a software project. The CPDV is exactly what I was looking for.  Well, it will be when it's done anyway. :-)  But Mr. Conte has more than enough done for me to get started.  I'd like the article to stay.  Or I would also consider writing a repleacement article once I am more familiar with the project. --LawfulGood 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Recreate the article when this version of the Sacred Scriptures bears a Nihil obstat and an Imprimatur. Endomion 07:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good article. -- JJay 07:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity and lack of notability. --Apostrophe 08:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Endomion. Movementarian 10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not even half-finished. And it is vanity, besides. -- Marcika 14:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, NN --  Dalbury ( Talk )  15:18, 25 December 2005 (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.