Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's Word (bible translation)


 * 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

God's Word (bible translation)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An article on a Bible translation sourced almost exclusively from its own website and publishers. Google returns exactly five hits for "God's Word" +beck +glessler (the originators). God's Word is a generic phrase in discussing Bibles so Google is hard to interpret, but I'm not seeing evidence of non-trivial independent sources for this. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article, it saddens me to have to say this, but I agree with Guy's points. During the 20th century, there were loads of translations released. Some stuck around, such as the NIV, NKJV, or NASB. Others faded away, such as this one. Thinking back on it now, it was really tough to find sources (outside the various publishers) for the article due to the obscurity of the translation. As for the title, that's not really our problem allthough it trips up google searches, as Guy has said. In other words, let's delete this for the reasons I (and Guy) have laid out. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article author's input normally would be normative at this point, this claims to be a real Bible translation, endorsed by elements of at least one major Christian denomination. What's more, it was both a) published and b) referenced in at least one independent RS that documents Bible translations.  It's notable and should be kept, even if it wasn't the next NIV. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I did some Google Scholar and Google Books searching and I found a fair bit to establish common usage. The results need to be weeded through and integrated appropriately into the article, but my initial impression that this was notable has been reinforced by my searches. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability not established. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as reliant on a single source, where there may be a conflict of interest. I do not know this translation, but would suggest that most translations of the all-time best selling book are notable.  It ought to be possible to produce citations for criticisms of the work from reviewers at the time of publication.  However that was before the Internet was widely used, so that they may not be readily accessible.   Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This version of the Bible is included in the widely distributed and used electronic Bible, "eSword," which may help establish notability. Additionally, Google returns a few other sources that need to be reviewed when searching for "American Translation Bible," which is another label attached to God's Word Bible in this article. There is some confusion about that label that needs clarification, as the search for American Translation Bible returns much more information about the 1939 translation by JM Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed. Heyjohnboy (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This was one of the first in the modern wave of dynamic equivalence/paraphrase translations. (Finding a cite for that requires one to dig thru hardcopy journals from sixties thru eighties.)(If inclusion in Bible Study Software makes it notable, then I'll point out that it is included in Logos Scholar 3) jonathon (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would call a Bible software package an independent secondary source, provided it was published by an organization other than the one which sponsored the translation. Logos is certainly the grand-daddy of the field, as well. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 30 August 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.