Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Book


 * 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. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article does not establish notability ~  R . T . G  07:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Malformed timewasting nonsense nom of a subject to which shelves of books are devoted, and which gets over 20,000 views pa. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You show a search list of biblical reference as though it somehow changes the fact that the entire reference of the article is 8 photographs, book in a hand, book in a coffin, book in a... wait a minute..! It's like an unreffed sasquatch article, and I don't appreciate the impression I have of a blind person going through this articles references.


 * And when I realised it was fully unsourced I scrolled back to the top of the page to re-read. The Gospel Book it was saying...  And I couldn't help but see, it is not establishing that notability by referencing reliable source, and rather than the issue of a simple page move, it was totally not in accordance with WP, and I've seen better articles go down on the same note.  So it may be messy on my part, but the facts remain.  What is this notability you speak of?  Where are the references for this article?  It's not there.  It's not been there for years.  That's the kind of thing that gets deleted in other subjects.  What's different here?  The search listed above gives 20,000 books.  Gospel Book gives not one.  I don't see the link, cheers.  ~  R . T . G  18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Hey, here (http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/gospels/) is one quite solid source, for starters. I will try to find the time to re-work the article in at least a rudimentary way and add sources in the coming days. But please take away the ugly red tag. It's very obvious a notable subject. Good night for now. Yakikaki (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That one looks like a very good start. However, it would be further improvement to have something about the earliest recorded origins and particularly recognised gospel books.  A bonus would be any significant modern practice or related book binding techniques.  It may get 60 hits a day and it is probably on hundreds of watch lists, but it has been three weeks to find someone actually intent to improve, thanks..  ~  R . T . G  11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I searched an issue to slap ~ R . T . G  and thought I had found one, but he has a point. Close keep, but get the interwiki links in order. The deWP and German scholars distinguish de:Evangeliar, which relates to Gospel Book and de:Evangelistar, which relates to Evangeliary. Book of Kells and Lindisfarne are - in german Evangeliare, but Gospel book seems the right translation. Source based on a googlecheck Cultural Law: International, Comparative, and Indigenous 2010. p.510. Serten (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Book of Kells and Lindisfarne are - in german Evangeliare, but Gospel book seems the right translation." - why "but"? This follows the distinction in your previous sentence. The Books of Kells and Lindisfarne are certainly gospel books in English. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, let's not try to slap each other just for the sake of it, though :) I agree that the article seems quite a mess, so I can understand the reaction as well. But since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, let's do so! As I wrote, I'll try to start sorting it out as soon as I have time, but for the moment work and family are taking a lot of attention. Until then, stay well -Yakikaki (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep saying the article is a mess, but why? Are there specific mistakes you are aware of? I know a fair bit about the subject and I can't see any, though I don't say it is all accurate. Arguably it understates the art history, which is all the problem I can see. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Time to close this silly nom. When we have Category:Gospel_Books with 87 articles on individual examples, at least two FAs, it is ridiculous to argue the subject is not notable. I have referenced some sections, though the Orthodox one needs doing. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2014 (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.