Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. MBisanz talk 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition[edit]

Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable sources, no book notability or otherwise any mentions that i can find, seems to be promotional of this religious view-point rather than encyclopedicBali ultimate (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything sourced to Assemblies of Yahweh. Although it looks like the citations are only to libraries where the book can be found, not about its notability. 5500 copies in 20 years doesn't seem that notable to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Keep @ Keep People want to know about Sacred Name Bibles; this one has been around for the past 28 years. It is one of the only Sacred Name Bibles that use Yahweh is both the Old and New Testaments. It is one of the main of the Sacred Name Bibles and listed among very few Divine name translations [1]. You type Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition Bible in to a search engine and you will get literally hundreds of results for this reason. Just because you have a gap in your knowledge about certain things, doesn’t mean you can come out with something like this.
    • You're the first to complain about "No reliable sources, no book notability" so what does that tell you. Apparently, others hold that the Bible is notable. in fact they are two books listed in the Bibliography and several references. Just because you have never heard of the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition, you cannot assume that people who hold different beliefs to yours don't either. And Ricky, contrary to your opinion, the AOY has printed over 5,500 copies.
      • No reason to delete the article; it is backed by three books and several references: In Citer— In Citer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I The explanations of both Ricky and Bali for the deletion of this article aren't even backed by the article itself In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Good lord. I nominated this via AFD because i knew speedy would be contested, and now there's a whole bunch of text up above in a template about the speedy nom being contested? Could you please at least remove the template and keep this on topic and not personal? As for the reason behind my nom, this book/translation/whatever does not meet any of wikipedia notability guidlines (start at WP:NOTABILITY if you haven't read it). It is not the subject of any non-trivial mentions in any reliable WP:RS secondary sources anywhere. Those are the reasons for the nom (and yes, i do think the Bible is a notable book).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three books from outside sources and several references but you still say it isn't notable? Not sure about that Bal In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not put that I am a single user account again. I have created over 6 articles. What is wrong with putting down what I know about a certain subject (and I know quite a bit about the aoy). Why should I work on other articles when I know most about the AOY? I don't want to be a administrator. This subject interests me...what about you? In Citer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey, from my personal point of view it's a screwy topic and the article is written in an odd style with possible WP policy issues, but as far as Wikipedia notability goes it took me about thirty seconds to find an independent source on this in an encyclopedia of religions.
Here's another one from a catalog of Bible translations. The entire text itself seems to have been scanned by Google Books, which means it's probably in at least one major library. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Per all the reliable sources. No doubt this is an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not censored. --Jmundo (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: may I ask, what sources? In this version, sources 2 and 3 are just about the meaning of the work "Yahweh" and aren't relevant, sources 4 and the two in 5 are to libraries where the book exists. I mean, I guess that's reliable but I assumed notability requires something more than mere existence. Otherwise, wouldn't even band, book, organization in existence be notable enough under that logic? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sacred_Scriptures_Bethel_Edition&oldid=1071208050"