Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 14:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable book - the coverage is similar to that described in WP:1E - there was a bit of coverage when the book was published, but it has no lasting significance. Also, I note the book is self-published. StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Australian source showing in the footnotes on a boycott is a good one. A quick visit to Mr. Google isn't finding anything else similar. One would think there are similar efforts somewhere else in the world which would get this title over the GNG hurdle. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that it was an Australian book - it doesn't seem to have generated controversy anywhere else. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete One event briefly covered isn't sufficient. And as noted, self-published as are a number of her books. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, secondary source coverage across multiple different languages. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you sure you posted this at the right AfD? No one's provide the sources you mention. If you meant this AfD surely you are expected to show those sources exist so they can be verified, right? Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established by multiple secondary sources. Also the author is not notable, or as least does not yet have an article here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2013 (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.