Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition

Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition

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]
What does seem notable to you Bali? Whether it is an ant, or whether it is intergalactic planet it doesn't matter, notability comes from how it is received by the rest of the world. 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. Ricky:

1. The AOY has printed over 5,500 copies

No reason to delete the article; it is backed by two books and several references: In Citer (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)— In Citer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I mean the explanations of both Ricky and Bali for the deletion of this article aren't backed by the article itself.[reply]

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]