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. Shimeru (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defined King James Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This WP article about a book does not obviously meet WP:NB. Written by D.A. Waite, whose article I also just nominated for deletion.

There is a review of this book on this page but it is written in a sort of blog. There are reviews of the book on sites that sell it, but I am not seeing a scholarly review anywhere. I think this might be a non-notable book written by a non-notable person. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Per nominatior; Non-notable book by non-notable person. RaaGgio (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As mentioned in the D. A. Waite nomination, ~ Google search for "D.A. Waite" produced 81,000 hits. He is the president of the Dean Burgon Society who is frequently mentioned in articles about the King James Only Movement by James White 1, Bart Erhman 2 and would be, besides Peter Ruckman the most influential supporter of the King James Bible in the past 30 years, (as clearly evident in articles on Wikipedia about this topic). ~ Also in reference to the DKJV, it received 144,000 hits in a Google search on "Defined King James Bible" 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That isn't actually relevant in this discussion, I'm afraid. It's possible that an author is notable, but his book isn't, OR vice versa. But Ghits for Waite, whatever relevance it has for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite, doesn't suggest notability for this book. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article along with the other article mentioned are Pertinent articles on an issue that is much in debate in certain religious circles and should remain and findable references to pertinent writings on the subject. I Repeat.. DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maranatha (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable: zero hits in Google News, no obviously independent sources found in Google Scholar. If an appropriate article on the KJV-only movement, this could be merged there, but there is clearly not enough independent, reliable source coverage for a separate article on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Keep. A quick Google search finds quite a few book reviews (both pro and anti). That seems to suggest notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a privately published book! StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep -- Bible Translations are generally notable, but this is only an edition with a gloss. Private publication also weakens the case. I am in fact close to voting delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self publsihed book. Usually I give benefit of doubt in these cases but I decided to look a bit deeper for sources, there's nothing of substance. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A self-published book by a non-notable author is not notable. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (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.