Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutheran Study 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   delete. Primary sources do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Lutheran Study Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability, sources or verifiability Basileias (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Many study Bibles entries on Wikipedia are stubs, this one is no less notable than those . It links to the publisher's page on it so it is verifiable Skippypeanuts (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete "Other stuff exists" argument above is inadequate. No evidence this particular edition of the Bible satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia does not have to have an article about everything which verifiably exists. Edison (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I think my afd proposition counts as a vote? Or do I get a vote? The publishers link is a sales link to buy. I do no believe there is anything notable about this article. There are no souces to indicate anything about this article is notable. There are also multiple editions. None of which, again, are notable. Basileias (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note The publisher's page gives all the info that is in the article so the information is verifiable. Article has existed since 2009. I just wonder why certain pages get attention for deletion when others don't that is all. see Wesley Bible for example.Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It should go too. Unless there's something particularly notable about a book, any book, it is not encyclopedic. However, I am open to be convinced per wiki policy. Merging the information into specific translations might be a better option. Basileias (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but I would prefer to see this article and The Lutheran Study Bible merged, so that both study bibles were covered by a single article. The two are far too similar for us to need them both, even if one has the prefix "The" and the other does not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: they started out as one article I separated them because they are two different books only with a similar name. Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NB, unable to find any reliable sources, could incorporate info from this article into the publishers Augsburg Fortress Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note re above discussion have just nominated Wesley Bible for deletion see Articles for deletion/Wesley Bible :) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 22 February 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.