Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Bible Center


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

World Bible Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:NOTCRYSTAL, also poorly written and referenced Mdann52 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - as far as I can tell, the World Bible Center doesn't actually exist. It's really only a proposal. Beastiepaws (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is best summed up as WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Beastiepaws (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the subject shows similarities to vaporware: long planned and announced, but not materializing. The article's sourcing is questionable, with three sources cited as of 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC):
 * a dead link
 * a Huffington Post article that does not mention the Center by name
 * a document in Hebrew
 * There is also an external link to a Hebrew language blogspot page "under construction."
 * Just plain Bill (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete When I Googled this, I found out that it's merely a proposal. Therefore, WP: CRYSTALBALL applies. Electric Catfish 22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep i think no matter if it never built until now it is still waiting for final approvals for start this project that every old Testament scholars in Israel are still waiting for it and looking forward to it and it's not a canceled thing for the past. the construction of the building has been approved by all governments of Israel and most Israelis are already waiting to begin construction. I really think that there is no reason to delete.פארוק (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Once it happens it might be notable. Until it happens it's like a million other money things we're waiting for.  It'll be notable when organizations meet their capital campaigns and can build new buildings, or someone gets their grant and can do their research, or when I, for instance, win five gajillion dollars -- the largest lottery prize in history! -- and can finally pay off my student loans from law school.  But until it happens it's not notable.   I'm pretty sure there's a Jewish proverb about this but until I can find it that's not notable either. --Lquilter (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This was proposed and commented on by several government ministers, and there were several pages of parliament debate and newspaper publications on it. So it still passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed legislation often gets reported on in a routine fashion, as covering the business of government. But unless we're talking about something that actually generates something real in the world -- i.e., it passes, or it generates a massive backlash that prevents its passage (cough) -- then I would consider parliamentary discussion and related reportage as routine and non-notable.  Coverage within the publications of organizations pushing for or promoting the legislation would not be independent, of course.  (I say all this as a member of organizations that routinely push for or against legislation.) --Lquilter (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per the arguments above. The building is just in the proposal stage and has no notable coverage.  The only sources, as stated, are just routine reports that do not consist of any sort of in depth coverage showing any sort of notability.Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2012 (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.