Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Work of God's Children Illustrated 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 delete. Without actual sourcing, there's nothing to merge. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've done a few web searches and books searches, and I can't find any substantive discussion of this work: a good number of sites mention it in long lists of bible translations, and there are some sites that complain about it as part of a general grumbling about non-standard bible translations, but I can't find good evidence of notability of the kind that would satisfy the GNG. Slashme (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, but I guess I tend to see all Bible translations as inherently notable. If kept, it should be moved to Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible. StAnselm (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 03:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete At this point, this is pure advertising. I searched, and came up empty. For all I know this work-in-progress may turn out to be the greatest illustrated Bible since Gustave Doré.  But at this point it is merely somebody's pet online project.  I wish them well, but:  no significant reliable sources = no article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm on board with StAnselm's IAR rationale. All bible translations should be regarded as inherently notable. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I thought that it was accepted that all Bible translations were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of coverage. Carrite and Peterkingiron are incorrect, there is no common outcome for Bible translations. (See, e.g. Articles for deletion/Restored Holy Bible and Articles for deletion/Complete Jewish Bible.) Even were that to be so, this is not a new translation.  It may be dumbed down here and there but it is the Challoner Revision of the Douay–Rheims Bible which has its own article.  Basically, the group is just using crowd-sourcing to produce an illustrated bible. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. Tokyogirl79 put it this way last June Any translation, regardless of whether it was in print, electronic, or both formats, must have been the focus of independent and reliable coverage. Here the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources is indicative at the minimum of WP:TOOSOON, but could equally as well foreshadow lack of future notability. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed that it was a translation, not a mere edition, and have therefore changed my vote. Rather than delete, might it not be better to merge (briefly) to Douay–Rheims Bible? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2015 (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.