Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Authorized Version


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The New Authorized Version

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication this Bible translation is notable. There are no reliable independent sources at all. Huon (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find blogs (mostly written by Wikipedians), booksellers, mirror wikis, and generic "lists of every translation ever made of the Bible" but nothing remotely reaching significant (or even detailed) coverage. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Curious. I thought the Golden Rule was, "Do unto others as you would have others do to you." Until this threat to delete came up, I had thought that wikipedia wanted to encourage participation in building a resource for informative and useful content, and that was why I invested the time to correct some errors in the subject article and add some useful content. As a result of your rejection of my contribution, I took a moment to see what some others thought about wikipedia and one of the first articles that came up started with this:
 * Please retain this article/page. The wikipedia article/page: Bible_translations_into_English lists 141 Bibles, each of which have separate wikipedia articles/pages, and many of those have fewer or no more cited references than The AV7 Bible article/page. Why should The AV7 Bible article/page be singled out and selectively targeted for deletion while many other articles/pages with fewer or no more referenced citations are retained by wikipedia? What benefit is it to wikipedia or to the community of those who use wikipedia to find information to delete content that provides useful and informative content? The AV7 Bible article/page has existed in wikipedia for 10 years, since 2006, so why should it now be selectively singled out and targeted for deletion? The AV7 Bible ~ The New Authorized Version of the Bible has many distinctive and beneficial features and attributes that are not found in any other published Bible. Why should wikipedia arbitrarily censor just one of the 141 Bibles that are currently listed in its Bible_translations_into_English list? Onebible (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , the fact that poor articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean we should keep them. If there are other articles on the Bible translations into English that are not of a suitable quality, they will either be improved or deleted. As for the age of this article - just because no one has noticed that this article does not meet the inclusion criteria doesn't mean it magically gets to ignore them; it just means that it hasn't been noticed. At the moment there are only two Articles that link to the AV7 page, so it's really no surprise that it's "flown under the radar" so to speak. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Primefac: Your "poor article" assessment seems like a subjective judgment; but since you and Huon have the power to assert your will, and you seem determined to get rid of this article, it makes little sense to try further to dissuade you. Rather ironic, though, that you talk about "inclusion" while seeking to exclude and diminish content that many people might find useful. So go ahead and do your worst ... but who will benefit by your capricious autocratic censorship? Onebible (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , what part of The Golden Rule is subjective? Your article has no significant coverage from independent sources. That is a purely objective measure. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Top 10 Reasons why people cannot rely on Wikipedia:


 * 1) 1 Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us ... some articles may contain errors ... you should not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.” The Wikipedia “About” section states, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality ... they may contain false or debatable information.” Reference: Using Wikipedia


 * 1) 2 Accurate contributors can be silenced. Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source” with the editor deciding what is reliable ... editors at the top of Wikipedia rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.


 * 1) 3 It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. The contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than years ago. The result is that a group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever. A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate ... it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebible (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not only is there no credible claim of notability (so there's a WP:GNG issue) the article itself is written in promotional terms, right down to the part that tells you to go to the website that sells it if you want more information. This is not what encyclopaedic language sounds like. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of bible translations all of which claim to be the best translation or paraphrase this article is a promotion of a certain version of the bible unless the promotional language is removed and there is proof of this bible versions notability. wikipedia is not the place to promote anything or any organization. so my recommendation is to Delete this article in its current condition if you want to work on wikipedia that is great we want you here there is an alternative though why dont you userfy this article Userfication — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome to !vote "userfy" put please do not move the page until the AFD is concluded. Also, I'm removing the  tags in your comment since it's just a wikilink Primefac (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you so much Primefac i am thankful for your service yes my recommendation is to Userfy for onebible thank you Primefac for fixing my mistake i am grateful for your service
 * Delete the LOLCat Bible Translation Project has more mentions in reliable sources than this translation does. Totally agree on the promotional bit too. Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:PROMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sadly, because the idea of a fresh, machine-translated version of the bible's original text is intriguing. However there is absolutely nothing out there that I can find to demonstrate notability. I don't even think it's a WP:TOOSOON: there's not a whiff of academic respectability from the site itself, and a cursory perusal of the text makes the whole thing look like a massive copy and paste job. I suspect the 'sharing' aspect is its raison d'être - i.e. it's an email and and social contacts harvester. Mcewan (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find enough useable sources, did find this (from English Language Bible Translators) but more is needed, note that this bible version is not mentioned at List of English Bible translations, no issue with it being mentioned there. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2016 (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.