Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Heart English 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   Speedy deleted under A7 by User:WikiLeon. (non-admin closure) LeaveSleaves talk 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

New Heart English Bible

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

Does not establish notability. I'm sure there are at least 100 versions of the bible. Do we need an article on every "version" detailing their idiosyncrasies? I reason we don't, so since this article does not establish notability on its own (even public domain has lots of bibles, see This List for example) please delete. (also creator has a possible COI, see the name of the article creator) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might become notable in the long run, but it certainly isn't now (nothing shows up in google to support any kind of presence beyond mere existence). Drmies (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There are more than 100 notable versions of the English bible alone, and ghey all are appropriate for articles. 1000, 1000, or whatever, we're not paper. Whether this one has received enough notice needs to be shown by references. I think it well may be, but there has to be something in the way of sources--its not automatic. DGG (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you say, DGG, except for the 'weak keep' part. I didn't find anything at all, but will reiterate that bible translations are easily made notable, so to speak. Perhaps you have better ways of finding references, and if they are found, I'm all for keeping this article. But as it stands, and since I couldn't find anything, this is not yet notable. BTW, Alex, I concur with you also on the nom's rationale. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I disagree with the nominator's rationale; many, many Bible translations and interpretations are notable. But this doesn't appear to be one of them. The article gives no indication of notability, or of the origin of the project (as opposed to the text). AlexTiefling (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. This Bible translation was published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press.  Generally, self-published sources do not make a book notable: were it issued by a standard publisher, I would cheerfully change to keep.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I never said that notable bible versions couldn't be on wikipedia, I merely meant (I tried to not exaggerate so I toned the number down) that wikipedia doesn't need one on every version (notice the wording in nom), only notable ones, others can go in a list article (if at all, not sure). I stated that I felt this version didn't establish notability, so I'm at a loss on how my rationale is different, but regardless. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:10, 17 December 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.