Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cambridge Paragraph 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The result was   Keep (Non-admin closure) - Nominator appears to have withdrawn the request & all other !votes are keep. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't quite see why this translation is notable, and it seems to have an awful lot of OR. Thoughts? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search shows sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to render it notable as the first new scholarly revision of the King James Version in quite some time. Drawn Some (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in agreement with Drawn Some. The article needs a rewrite only. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite - Vartanza (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is established with coverage in reliable sources., and  are just two examples from many search results returned by Google News.  Any original research can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Whpq. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, you do make a pretty good case for keeping it. It just surprised me, as, well, it's one edition (but evidently an important one) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is established. It may well be that some of these articles on specific Bible translations eventually will have to be merged if there is insufficient content to keep them separate, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2009 (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.