Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern-Greek Orthodox 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a WP:SPS book. While I could agree that the Patriarchal text is WP:Notable, notability isn't inherited by a WP:SPS from its ancestors. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care anymore Delete I really tried to find something in support. It really doesn't seem like some hobby or amateur project. But "published and controlled by Greek Orthodox Christians" is just horribly vague. The publishers are CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform a self-publishing platform and Newrome Press which seems to be a miniscule religious publisher. I found some sources citing it, but not a single one discussing or evaluating it. I also found no major church or organisation endorsing it. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON, may just be permanently non-notable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would have weakly kept if re-publication of the work was made by a notable or reliable publisher, but Saint Ignatius Orthodox Press and Newrome Press are neither notable nor reputable, they appear to be typical small religious publishers. Veverve (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think whether a published is notable is actually a criteria for anything other than an article about the publisher. And unless you have some evidence for the that they're disreputable, you shouldn't be writing that on Wikipedia, even on a project page. Jahaza (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a reputable publisher is something verifiable and easily proveable. Otherwise, you are not a reliable publisher. There are thousands of small, non-reputable publishers throughout the world. Veverve (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I thought the accepted view was that all Biblical translations are notable. The lack of citations (except in BLP cases) is not a ground for deletion. The reputation of the publisher is not a material consideration. With academic books, having a academic publisher poiunts to notability, but the converse does not apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No critical reviews of the book that I can find, beyond simply proving it exists, I'm not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles all pertain to a 1000 yr old manuscript that was stolen, nothing about a translation effort. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.