Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lü Zhenzhong's version of the 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 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Lü Zhenzhong&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm sorry, but I just can't convince myself this meets WP:NBOOK. I don't think WP has a notability guide for bibles, so that's all I have. It's not easy to find any references; I'm almost convinced the book doesn't exist. Can anyone do better? Otherwise, I think we must delete this article. Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete — unless there was some kind of massively horrendous translation going on, and the Lü Zhenzhong Bible converted throngs of people to worshipping Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, this is a speedy delete. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Most Bible translations are notable. Since Chinese is the language of such a large proportion of the world's population, I would have thought this applied particularly to a Chinese translation.  My one concern is that a translation publihsed in 1970 is probably inot the traditional Chinese script, rather than the simplified one used in PRC; accordingly, its importance is likely mainly to be in Taiwan.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (warning may be going off topic:)) bible translations are not inherently notable, they still need to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NBOOK, see Articles for deletion/Wesley Bible, similarly a book in chinese doesn't make it notable, there are heaps of english books that aren't notable, even though there are lots of english speakers. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * (Weak) keep or Merge with translator article Lü Zhenzhong which definitely needs expansion, a quick google search yields an academic abstract mention of translator in a book   probably more can be found   Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A sufficient number of reliable sources can be found on Google Scholar. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a pretty sloppy search, . Note that Google search will find articles which have one, two, or three of the different keywords you entered and try to sort them for relevance. You don't offer any specific articles as representative of your claim, so I don't know which ones you think provide the significant coverage that Wikipedia demands of references used to establish notability. When I search more carefully, I find only three references. A slightly looser search generates more results, but of those I sampled, none seem substantial enough to warrant inclusion in WP. They're mention of Zhenzhong himself, or uses of his text as a comparison. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Other than this too narrow search, three references, we have several academic sources, which are quite sufficient to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. All three results are either pay-for, non-English, or both. Have you verified that they're non-trivial references? If so, I think you're obliged to sort out the referneces and add them to the article. Otherwise, your position seems to be nothing more than WP:LOTSOFGHITS. --- Mikeblas (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2015 (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.