Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Simplified Bible (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New Simplified Bible
Completing nomination. Conscious 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From Talk:New Simplified Bible:

I am requesting that this article is deleted. It might be thought that I have something against the translation since I have put a large amount of effort into the article describing why I believe the translation is a bad translation, but I fully support articles on notable bad translations, such as the Jehovah's Witness official translation, but I do not support articles on extremely non-notable translations, and whether it is a good or bad translation is irrelevant. In someways it makes me sad if my "criticisms of the translation" part of this article go (which I think is a good rebuttal of the translation errors made), but the real problem with this article is that it is just self-promotion. Brusselsshrek 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is, I believe, merely advertisment
 * Despite the large size, I believe that most of the content (always written without a signon) was by the author of the translation; if this were not the case I doubt that the article would even exist. There are many things which make me suspect that: edits always done anonymously, huge content on something really non-notable, the wikipedia edits usually contain "according to the author...", when I added a list of critiscims of the translation in the article the rebuttal appeared on the authors site and links were added to the rebuttals within the wikipedia article.
 * This translation (despite the author having laboured for many hours on it), is non-notable. It has never been published and never looks likely to be notable.
 * It was already deleted previously and has been recreated
 * See the first nomination. Conscious 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Don't know if there are any other notability guidelines for this, but it isn't like new electronically distributed Bible translations are threatening to fill the encyclopedia with translation-cruft.  This doesn't read like the first article with was justly deleted, and comes closer to being encyclopedic.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't a new translation; it's a self-published copy-edit of existing translations. --John Nagle 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the same could be said of many better known translations (RSV, NRSV, Douai-Rheims-Challoner, NKJV, REB). Not convinced that the website guidelines should be applied to something like this, either.  Smerdis of Tlön 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. AFAICT, this does not meet WP:WEB. Basically seems like someone did WP:OR, put it on the Web, and expects to use WP as a vehicle to promote it. Crum375 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. --Lambiam Talk 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Smerdis's inspection above, don't think it qualifies. --Chaser
 * Delete as generally non-notable, though I don't think WP:WEB or WP:OR should be applied to Bible translations, nor this for that matter. --Chaser (T) 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep well...it doesn't sound like advert to me, but it's only got 25^2 (=625) Ghits. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 | T | C | @ 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per first AFD. Wickethewok 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I mentioned in the introduction to this AfD request I did extensive work on this article during which I became highly suspicious that ALL the other content which was added anonymously was done by the author of the translation themself.  It is difficult to convey to you without a great deal of work how just how much it seemed that I was writing some sort or information in the "Criticisms of the translation" section, and all of a sudden, under an anonymous edit, there would be a rebuttal written in an encyclopedic style of the type "According to the author...blah...blah...blah".  An example of this sort of very suspicious style of editing:
 * In the | Revision as of 09:11, 3 April 2006 I wrote ridiculing the extremely grandiose name which the author had chose for the translation "The New Simplified Bible Limited Edition II". Then, in the | Revision as of 10:45, 4 April 2006 in one of a number of anonymous edits the article the name of the Bible is suddenly no longer "Limited Edition II".  Now, had the Bible actually changed name and some observant Wikipedian was updating this newly found important information or was it (as I suspect) really the author of the translation trying to hide one of the more easily hidden stupidities of his self-promotion having read my encycolopedic criticism in the article?
 * If you think this is actually the author of the translation doing some self-promotion, then take a look at the further edits done at the same session by the anonymous 4.228.204.115 or for example the suspiciously similar IP address 4.228.204.206.
 * Brusselsshrek 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per the original AFD. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:24, 30 May 2006 (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.