Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Voice (Project)


 * 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   No consensus; (default keep).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Voice (Project)

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

Contested PROD ... totally lacking WP:RS coverage to establish WP:CORP, just primary sources ... may be notable someday, but not at this time. &mdash; The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a Bible translation project, not a company. I have not heard of this translation, but most translations of the bible are notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, unless some third-party sources are found. I can't find anything but trivial mentions of it in a few newspapers (mostly in holiday-gift roundups), and nothing in books or Bible-scholarship journals. --Delirium (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Neutral . Changing to Keep. Comment added below.  My first thought was that this was really interesting, and should be kept.  But there are so many translations of the Bible out there, do we have articles on them all?  Judging from Bible translations, it looks like most translations probably do not have their own articles, so I was leaning "delete".  However, looking on Google, I see a ton of discussion going on out there, as well as what appear to be some articles in some reputable sources.  But I don't know much about how the AfD community regards sources, so I'll just leave these here for others to use in their consideration.           I don't know, the more of these I see, the more attention this thing seems to be getting.  I'm starting to lean to "Keep", but I'll wait until some experienced AfD hands can advise me on the relevance of these sources.  Un  sch  ool  05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reread the nom, and it does seem like the nom is off the mark. As User:Peterkingiron noted, WP:CORP is irrelevant here.  And I think I've found enough 3rd party sources to support the translation, if not the project.  Maybe it should be moved to The Voice (Bible translation).   Un  sch  ool  05:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are sufficient for notability. I support the move that Unschool suggested above. It's the translation, not the project, that is notable. DGG (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge with The_Voice:_New_Testament, incorporating all the new references User:Unschool gathered. I don't see how the sources are remotely authoritative. The first is from a source selling the translation.  The second looks like a lunatic fringe website.  And the third is from the project itself. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to be notable enough. No reason to delete.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into The Voice (bible translation). Springnuts (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The_Voice:_New_Testament as suggested by others - a rename to The_Voice: Bible or somesuch might be appropriate.  Keep iaw sources found by  Un  sch .  Springnuts (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — none only one of the sources in the article (the Christian Post one) nor those dug up by Unschool would possibly qualify as what I consider to be reliable sources. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Note: Amended !vote after a second look. However, I still side for deletion for lack of significant coverage as well as borderline spam.  MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments.
 * I'm not sure what User:RandomHumanoid means by "the first" source, but the first source that I have listed is an article from The Christian Post, a well-respected Christian online journal. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article I think demonstrates that it is a perfectly good source.
 * I was referring to the sources in the article at the time I made my comment; not the list that you provided. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Does it make any difference looking at this article from The Christian Post?  Un  sch  ool  06:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just found that we have another article, The Voice: New Testament, which is actually about the translation, not the project. I propose that the two articles be merged into The Voice (bible translation).  Un  sch  ool  05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from nom:
 * (a) To clear up some confusion, I interpreted "a Bible translation project" to be an "organization" for the purpose of this discussion, and thus Notability (organizations and companies) (or WP:CORP) seemed appropriate, specifically, "… to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article."A fundamental part of this is WP:V that comes from WP:RS, which this article was sorely lacking, i.e., it contained only primary sources, and no independent, secondary sources.
 * (b) As for, I think that we may be looking at a "walled garden" (and possible conflict of interest) because both articles were created on the same date by the same author, (a single-purpose account if I ever saw one) ... oddly enough, each is missing from the "what links here" for the other.
 * (c) While the current version bears Much Better citations than the version that I nominated, in my opinion they have not improved enough to satisfy the generic WP:N as defined by "multiple, non-trivial independent secondary sources."
 * (d) While I'm leaning towards Merge, I have no opinion regarding a renaming ... I just don't think that it has been around long enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards regardless of calling it an "organization" or the "fruit of the tree" in the case of "the translation" ... Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it just me, or does the first citation, ' (a primary source if there ever was one), smack of spam? I mean, it is an order page in an online catalog! I put some lipstick on this pig (a  and more info in the   tags) but I'm quickly losing interest in it. Happy Editing! &mdash; ' 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, anon, it clearly is spam, and assuming this ends up merged, as it appeared headed, I assure you that link will be stricken. Un  sch  ool  19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - re: The Voice: New Testament, I put some lipstick on it (copied the refs from The Voice (Project), including the WP:SPAM link) and find that it also lacks WP:RS, so a Delete for either one should be a Delete both, IMHO. &mdash; 72.75.108.10 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - I would keep The Voice: New Testament, but reduced to a redirect to a merged article. Springnuts (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On a personal note: I'd just like to respond to say that I'm not a single-purpose account; my purpose is to contribute where I can and make edits where I see a need. If you look at my contributions page, you'll see that I've also started articles on Howard Brinton and the Winchester Regional Airport. Not sure what a Quaker scholar and a regional airstrip have to do with a Bible translation. I only created this page because I received "The Voice: New Testament" for Christmas and thought it was deserving of a Wikipedia page. If smarter minds than me think I'm incorrect, that's fine; I acknowledge that the page is lacking in outside resources. Personally, I think the article would best be merged with The Voice: New Testament, as some users have suggested. KBurchfiel (talk) 02:33, 4 January 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.