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. The two "keep" opinions do not present arguments that counter the lack of reliable independent sources. JohnCD ( talk) 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Restored Holy Bible

Restored Holy Bible (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK, and WP:NWEB. This is a web-based Bible translation with one author which has no reliable secondary sources. Searches for sources found nothing and no signs of anything. From article talk, plausible WP:COI concerns with article creator as well. Grayfell ( talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as fails notability - self-published translation which appears to be freeware/pdf. The talk page is hilarious. I have many favorite parts. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 21:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Bible translations are pretty much a dime a dozen, as every few years someone comes up with a new translation with some sort of gimmick to it. (Easier to read, more "true" to how it was originally written, etc.) Sometimes these translations can catch on and become notable, like the ESV or The Message, but I don't see where this is the case here. Bible translations do not automatically inherit the Bible's notability ( WP:NOTINHERITED). As was said on the talk page, this has nothing to do with what translation is "correct" or "right". This deletion is all about whether or not this specific translation has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles, scholarly coverage in academic journals or academic textbooks, and similar. I'm fully aware of how difficult it is for a new translation of the Bible to get this sort of coverage in RS. Despite the amount of believers, the amount of scholars and newspapers that would cover this and be considered reliable sources is pretty small. Regardless, that coverage is still required and a search doesn't show where anyone has really paid much attention to this translation. A search brings up nothing that would be considered a RS. That there are very few "junk" hits (false positives) and non-usable hits (primary sources, blogs, forums, etc) is also pretty telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The article (and a person above) mistakes "translation" and "paraphrase." An actual translation is an incredible feat. It takes decades, and the idea that one will be undertaken by a single person is simply incredible. Tyndale took quite a few years, as I recall. A translation takes working with all the editorial decisions on manuscripts, all variora, and being an expert in several dialects of ancient Hebrew, as well as koine Greek, "church" Latin (for the Vulgate), and medieval Latin and late koine (for early editors). On the other hand, it's easy-peasy to take someone else's translation and "fix" it by recasting it. That's what is most often done (The Patriot's Bible, The Housewife's Bible, The Tea Party Bible are all real things, and they're RSV that's been chopped and squeezed, with emendations to serve political and cultural points). This ain't no "fixing" of the Bible, has no confirmation or independent coverage, and seems pretty much like another amateur with an agenda. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. You can not measure the notability of Web based translations with the same measures as those that started as hard copy; otherwise should you remove all the Online and Public Domain Bibles for being a stub. Looking to the links in other Modern English Bibles: The reviews in other Modern English Bibles are made by their publishers so they are not the NEUTRAL peer-reviews that you expect from the Restored Holy Bible. This is a double standard. Katoog ( talk 06:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Any translation, regardless of whether it was in print, electronic, or both formats, must have been the focus of independent and reliable coverage. The coverage doesn't have to be identical and I'm aware that older translations will have had the opportunity to enjoy a higher chance of coverage, but being an online-only translation does not exempt this article from the same notability guidelines as any other translation. The existence of other articles ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) does not automatically mean that this article should remain. Those other translations might pass notability guidelines in ways that this does not or it could just be that those articles haven't been nominated for deletion just yet. As far as reviews go, I'm not sure that you're thinking of reviews in the same ways that we are. In order to be a reliable source the review or critique must be published via an outlet (print, website, TV) that is a vetted source that is also independent of the publisher or people otherwise involved with the production of the work. For example, Zondervan publishes their own translation of the Bible. Anything that is published by Zondervan on this specific translation would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source at best since they have a conflict of interest that would make them potentially biased towards the subject. However if a separate publisher (like Yale Press) or an academic journal (Asia Journal of Theology) were to publish an article written by someone who was not involved with the creation of Zondervan's translation, those would be considered reliable sources. It's not easy for new translations to get coverage (especially if they're not translations but adaptations of a pre-existing translation, as in Hithladaeus's comment) but it's still a requirement. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Also, just because this was published on a website as opposed to an e-book publisher does not mean that this Bible translation wouldn't fall under WP:NBOOK. Even if we were to set it for the general notability requirements ( WP:GNG) or the requirements for websites ( WP:NWEB), you would still have to show independent and reliable sources. You'll never find an article on Wikipedia that passes notability guidelines and only has itself as a reference, at least none that should be on Wikipedia. Every notability guideline on Wikipedia requires coverage in secondary, reliable sources. You're not going to find any experienced editor that will agree otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The "notablity" of The Message and RSV is only because of the marketing and the "b-movie reviews" by professionals. "a-movie reviews" (good reviews for faithful translations) are less done by professionals. World English Bible(WEB) is the most notable of the all the Public Domain Bibles it is supported many Bible software but unknown in the offline world of established publishers and Academic journals; The deletion of World English Bible(WEB) from the Public Domain links by Grayfell(the nominator) was the reason for my first reaction in the talk page. It is not only about the Restored Holy Bible but about every Public Domain or Web Bible that are notable by the users of Bible software; they are all in danger for deletion by editors who don't use Bible software. Katoog ( talk 05:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• I assume you're talking about my edits to Modern English Bible translations. That article is very messy, and has many WP:OVERLINKS. I think I removed World English Bible from one of the redundant lists, which I am happy to discuss with you. This nomination isn't the place to discuss that, though. The WEB article itself does need more reliable sources, and again, a discussion of that problem would be appropriate somewhere else, such as Talk:World English Bible. If this Bible is notable in the online world, then it should be possible to find reliable online sources discussing it. Right now there are none. Grayfell ( talk) 06:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• I have to concur with Grayfell. If there are issues with other articles (and odds are high that there are) then they need to be dealt with on the talk pages for those articles, not here. The WEB is not the page that is currently up for deletion. It does need additional sourcing to show notability, but that's something to talk about on that specific talk page. Also, just because Grayfell is actively trying to improve and edit other pages that deal with electronic Bibles does not mean that he has an agenda or is out to delete every article on e-Bibles, which is pretty much what you're inferring here. You're not really doing much to help your case here. You need to provide coverage in reliable sources. Saying that other stuff exists and making WP:BADFAITH assumptions about editors on here and on the article's talk page really doesn't reflect well on you or on the article. If anything it kind of just hammers home that this really isn't a notable translation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It is now rated as Start-Class and Low-importance. Katoog ( talk 09:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it has no independent references that might confirm notability. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- I thought we had an accepted position that all Bible translations were notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Well... that's a bit of an issue since one of the above editors has questioned whether or not this is an actual translation or if it's just a rephrasing of other translations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• It is heavy edited from the Webster Bible since January 2012 and later compared with the Restored Textus Receptus beta (Restoration of the Original NT Text) that is now used as only NT source (there are thousands of Tense Voice Mood and Harmonisation related edits taken from the Hebrew and Greek sources) for example the pLuperfect "had known" and "had stood" in the NT. But that doesn't matter because the point is that all Bible translations are Bibles and the Bible is notable. The Restored Holy Bible is a Bible translation and is therefore notable. ( WP:NOTINHERITED) doesn't cover translations of any notable book. Katoog ( talk 07:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• To be completely blunt, a revised version of a pre-existing translation is not a new translation and you won't find many Biblical scholars that say otherwise. To count as its own translation Vanhee would have had to have translated this himself from the original Hebrew and Greek, word for word. Sometimes revised (ie, "paraphrased") works can become independently notable, however this does not seem to be the case here. I'm pinging Peterkingiron to this effect since his keep depends heavily on this book being a new translation and not a revision. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Basically, while revising is not an easy task it is not the same thing as a translation. What's problematic here especially is that this is a revision of a revision and while Webster's Revision is notable because it's heavily used (or is at least still sold in stores, although it's not as popular as other texts) and has received coverage in academic texts, I can't see where this revision of a revision is ultimately noteworthy. I can see the argument that original translations can be considered notable, but I don't see where this should/could apply to revised texts unless they have received coverage in independent and reliable sources- which this hasn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

[sometimes revised (ie, "paraphrased") works] The Restored Holy bible is a Literal translation: more literal then Webster. Does this sound as a simple paraphrase? Harmonisation: identical direct quotes, idioms and phrases must be translated identical (the same word-order, punctuation and no synonyms). The translation must be so literal as possible without using wooden English and in respect with the Poetic Layout.

Secondly; by your measures is the King James Bible a paraphrase and not a translation because it used the Bishops' Bible as basis in the beginning. And the Webster Bible who used the King James as basis. The Restored Holy Bible is a translation; using the word "paraphrase" is like the reverse philosophy as the Message did. (Using his own words instead of using the sources is also called paraphrasing). [works can become independently notable, however this does not seem to be the case here] Remember that WP:BADFAITH is assuming that it is only a KJV clone. Katoog ( talk 15:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• However the KJV was not simply a revised text. It was still a translation that took 47 translators and 7 years to complete. Even if we were to consider it simply a revised text, the fact that there are an extremely large amount of sources covering the KJV would easily qualify it for notability. The RHB is a text by someone who revised ("paraphrased") a pre-existing work. It has received absolutely zero coverage in reliable sources and to be very honest, even if it was an actual translation I would still say that it would have to establish notability by way of coverage in independent and reliable sources. (IE, academic sources by people who were not directly related to the project itself.) What we have here in this situation is a revised version that has received zero coverage in reliable sources and is almost non-existent in a Google search in general, as a search using "Restored Holy Bible" brought up only a couple thousand search hits in the general category and zero in Google Scholar. A search on Bing brought up less than a hundred. It just isn't notable. Just because some translations and revisions of the Bible are notable does not mean that all translations and revisions are notable. That's kind of like saying that because some strains of Christianity are notable that all strains of Christianity are notable. The most basic guideline of notability is that the topic has to receive coverage in reliable sources and this has none, nor does there even seem to be enough general use of the Bible to even argue that it should be kept based on the amount of use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• I agree. I think that trying to determine if this is a translation, or a paraphrase, or adaptation, or anything else is basically a distraction, because we do not have any reliable sources, and trying to make such distinctions on our own would be original research. Right now the article doesn't really have any reliable sources indicating that this project even exists. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, of course, but even the loosest interpretation of WP:N requires at least some basic sourcing. If we don't have sources, we need some reason to suspect that there are sources we haven't found yet/don't have access too. Do we have any reason to think that? Grayfell ( talk) 03:26, 8 June 2015 (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.