Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Latin Testament 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Latin Testament Project

The Latin Testament Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Advertisement for totally non-notable project; none of the books are in more than 5 libraries according to Worlcat. No third party references, and the author/publisher apparently wrote this article himself--see the adjacent AfD . This article should have been removed as soon as it was entered on WP. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

KEEP: Third-party source added as reference on 9/18/16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgc searchlight (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC) KEEP: Please consider the following review from a professor at St John Paul II University, Lublin, Poland. "Out of many available translations of the Psalms into English, I find your translation the best: it is a very close, linguistically conscious translation of the Gallican Psalter – so good that it can not only help to disambiguate the more difficult passages in the English texts but also help those whose Latin is not good enough to be able to trace the intricacies of these early renderings into English. Since your translation is so extraordinary among the existing Modern English texts, I wrote a section in my book devoted to it . . ." Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik, PhD John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland

See also the following link to a newspaper article on the Project from 2015: http://www.hendersondailynews.com/rev-john-cunyus/image_6736abbc-b58f-11e5-aae5-aba311a50bc5.html

Jgc searchlight (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

KEEP: This work is an important contribution to the understanding of scripture and is a differentiated resource accessible to secular scholars, theologians, clergy and laity. The claim of "totally non-notable" is profoundly inaccurate. David Zumwalt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmzumwalt (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

KEEP: This should be kept in Wikipedia because it is an explanation of a scholarly work, a translation of the entire 72 books of the old and new testaments. And it can direct readers to this work for further enlightenment on the subject. Also, the way it is written makes reading the Bible easy, and it provides the direct Latin or Greek original text for comparison and study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn1000 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

KEEP - This is an invaluable source for those studying the Bible, especially when they are struggling with it nuances. I have found no other source so precise. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why not WikiBob (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

KEEP - This valuable, scholarly work belongs in Wikipedia due to its accuracy and the scarcity of similar references. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgp845 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find anything that discusses this project that isn't primary or would be considered a WP:RS on Wikipedia. There are some YouTube links and other WP:SPS that discuss the work, but not really anything else. The project seems to exist, but that's about it. It also doesn't help that the page is fairly promotional in tone and appears to have been written to make the project seem more notable and to promote its creator, John Cunyus. The sources in the article aren't usable to show notability as the majority of them are WP:PRIMARY and the only non-primary source is just a photograph of what looks to be a general discussion on religion, which cannot show notability for this project or at all. Photographs are considered to be WP:TRIVIAL sources except in very rare situations, which this is not. I searched two college databases for this project, one of which is a university that has a religious studies course program (so they'd be more likely to index periodicals and academic sources that would discuss religious topics). Neither had anything that would be usable, as the only source I found that mentioned either the project or Cunyus was a dissertation written by the person himself. As far as it being rare or exceptional, the thing is that Wikipedia requires coverage to show that something is notable and to help verify any claims made. How useful it is (WP:ITSUSEFUL) also doesn't give notability either. Something can be done well and be one of the few of its type, but neither give notability on Wikipedia. As far as the review mentioned above goes, we need to be able to verify the source, such as where and when it was written. If it was part of a longer review in an academic journal then it could help show notability, however if it's something that was solicited for the website then that wouldn't give notability since it'd be a routine book blurb. That it was mentioned elsewhere isn't an automatic guarantee of notability either, as you would still have to prove that the referring source would pass RS guidelines. It cannot be self-published and must be put through a reputable outlet known for its editorial oversight, at the very least. Even with that, the source would still need to mention the project in depth to establish notability. One source is not enough to establish notability, however, as most articles need about 3-5 independent, reliable, in-depth sources to establish this - and that's generally seen as on the weak end. The only time 1-2 sources are enough is when they're asserting something extremely major, like a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize.

I also have to caution people that AfDs are not decided on a vote and to be frank, it's usually a little suspicious when new people log in to argue for retention or come back after a long absence, which is why I've opened an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure exactly how to reference it, here is the unsolicited email cited above in its entirety. equest for permission: Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik <address removed, available on request> 01/30/13 at 2:17 AM To address removed, available on request Message body Dear Reverend Cunyus,

My name is Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik. I am assistant professor at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, working on English prose translations of Jerome’s Psalters. I am currently completing a book: “Text and Context in Jerome’s Psalters: Prose Translations into Old, Middle and Early Modern English.” The book is going to be published by the University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin.

The book presents the history of the dissemination of Jerome’s Latin Psalters and their prose translations into English. I examined a mass of various translations and prepared an edition of Psalms 1-50, which juxtaposes the Roman and the Gallican Psalters (on the basis of the texts/manuscripts circulating in England) and the texts of their English translations, starting from King Alfred the Great’s Old English translation, thorough four Middle English translations: Richard Rolle’s, the Middle English Glossed Prose Psalter, and the early and late Wycliffite versions, ending with the original 1609/10 Douay-Rheims text. Since all these texts are at places difficult to understand (I provided a gloss to the Old English Psalter, which has never been done before, but it is still hard to follow the sense of the verses), I wanted to provide them with a Modern English version which would make the meaning of the verses clear. Out of many available translations of the Psalms into English, I find your translation the best: it is a very close, linguistically conscious translation of the Gallican Psalter – so good that it can not only help to disambiguate the more difficult passages in the English texts but also help those whose Latin is not good enough to be able to trace the intricacies of these early renderings into English.

Since your translation is so extraordinary among the existing Modern English texts, I wrote a section in my book devoted to it and I would very much like to include into this collation the text of your Psalms 1-50. I believe your translation would greatly enhance the set, both as a help in disambiguating the difficult passages and by offering the text translated in a manner reminiscent of those early translators I am working on. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could grant me the permission to include your translation of Psalms 1-50 with due acknowledgement among the remaining eight Psalter versions in my book.

I am looking forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully,

Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik, PhD Jgc searchlight (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• E-mails are considered self-published sources on here at best and are almost never used on Wikipedia. I think that the only time I've seen them used is when they're a primary source and even then it has to be an email that is publicly posted and verified in some form or fashion. Now if you could show where in the book she mentioned the project (ie, so another editor can verify it) then that could help show notability (I'll run the publisher by WP:RS/N, but offhand the rankings section for the university suggests that it should be usable), however I need to again stress that this would be one source and not enough to establish notability on the strength of that alone. It's a step in the right direction, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Projects like this can sometimes take decades to gain traction. Take it down, if that's what you want. I appreciate learning about the WorldCat from DGG's initial post, and am glad to see our works are beginning to be disseminated, however slowly.Jgc searchlight (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is the full citation for the newspaper article above. I thought the link took one to it, but apparently it just went to the picture: "Henderson Pastor Explains the Importance of Bible Translation," Henderson Daily News, pg. 1, 5/22/2015 Jgc searchlight (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to another newspaper article from the Kilgore News Herald, Kilgore, Texas: http://kilgorenews.our-hometown.com/news/2012-01-07/Front_Page/KILGOROUND.html Jgc searchlight (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT as the article on the driving figure behind the project, John Cunyus, was recently deleted. This page has the hallmarks of a "walled-garden" article with unique tone and ext links in body. Deleting is the best bet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources about this. Even if I assume that the university press published book would have coverage, it would still be one source. Projects like these take time to be noticed and whether it is notable is something which can only be understood after a long time. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability; we add articles once there are enough sources to demonstrate notability. Accordingly, delete this as WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:12, 23 September 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.