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 redirect to Andy Gaus. The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Unvarnished New Testament

Unvarnished New Testament (  | 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:NB. I also can't see much discussion of this as a notable bible tr/info/en/?search=Unvarnished_New_Testamentanslation in the academic publications, nothing substantial in the media.. etc I'd be interested to see if there is a notability guideline for bible translations (I can't find one if there is) but if it does fall within the perview of WP:NB, it fails. I can't see any real way that the article could be expanded beyond quoting from it as a primary source. JMWt ( talk) 18:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Added references, including from a review by a top scholar in the field, published in the standard journal of the field. The translation has been noted, tho not widely praised. I will consider such a review to be adequate evidence of notability. Pete unseth ( talk) 22:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Even accounting for the additional references, 3 of the 4 are from blogs and therefore are not WP:RS for notability. A single review in an academic journal in 1993 does not give notability. This article needs a lot of better references to be notable. If they are to be academic references, it needs more of them. I simply do not believe that these exist. A single review in an obscure academic journal 20 years ago is not good enough on its own. JMWt ( talk) 11:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
If something was notable at a certain point in the past, but becomes less noted, do we remove its Wikipedia article? No. Therefore, the fact that the review is from "20 years ago" is not adequate reason to discount it. Secondly, the fact that it was published by an established publisher (rather than self-published) contributes to a translation of any part of the Bible as being notable. If you check the article List_of_English_Bible_translations, you will see that almost every translation listed has its own Wikipedia article. The fact that a major figure in the Bible translation world thought it worthy of his writing a thorough review says that he considered it notable. I have never read a Wikipedia policy that a published source must not be an "obscure academic journal". The fact that it was published in THE journal devoted to Bible translation actually adds considerable weight. Quite the opposite of a book being mentioned in a popular magazine. In the world of Bible translators, this is considered notable. The well meaning suggestion from Swister Twister about making an article for the author would run into worse problems, since his notability is based on this translation. The translation is noted in its own right, he is not. I will consider the matter of notability for this translation established. Pete unseth ( talk) 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
OK, well on your first point, I was saying that there is a poverty of sources given that the best reference is from an academic journal 20 years ago. The WP:GNG calls for significant, non-trivial coverage as per WP:TRIVCOV. If this translation was notable, I suggest the best reference would be more than a 20 year old review. On the second point, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a great argument either. For one thing, how do we know that the list you reference above contains all possible translations? It is a circular argument to show that all translations are notable if the notability is shown by having a wikipedia page. Indeed, it might well be the case that the translations considered worthy of being on the list have wikipedia pages. I will address the other points below. JMWt ( talk) 08:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and perhaps make a Andy Gaus article instead if he's solidly notable as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This translation does appear to be extensively mentioned in this book from the University of Manchester. I can access it via Drexel's student database, so I'll try to add quotes from it as I can. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Here's a version with a preview function. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This one is a bit tricky. I get the impression that there is likely more coverage out there, but it just isn't on the Internet. Mostly I'm getting this from the book source I found, which mentions it fairly frequently and with no small amount of scorn. However without those other sources, I'm leaning towards making an article for Gaus and including a subsection about his Unvarnished works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • He and this translation is mentioned here, but the emphasis seems to be on Gaus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe this is a review? It seems like it but I'd have to investigate a bit more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Good job on finding these. I take your point about there being non-digital sources and would be interested to hear what you find out about them. However, I still think that it would be reasonable to think that a bible translation that was notable would be found in more than a very small number of academic sources - if it was available to for sale to the public, one might expect articles in the media, or if it was really a notable academic step forward, some kind of continued reference in textbooks. If it is true that the author is only notable for producing a translation that is not-notable (and I've not been able to find out much about him, but maybe there are clues to who he is in the offline sources), I can't see how he can be notable either. JMWt ( talk) 08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I just looked at the preview of the Goodwin book you offered above, and the author appears to be briefly (half a page) attacking the premise of Gaus' translation (in particular apparently taking exception to the blurb on the cover and an introduction/review written by someone else). I don't think this can be fairly described as significant coverage of the translation under discussion. JMWt ( talk) 08:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
*I think that this would still be considered fairly in-depth. Now something I will note is that the version that I have access to via Drexel shows that the TUNT is mentioned on the following pages: 37, 115, 132, 163, 169, 170, and 179. It's either discussed or used as an example of this type of work. It's more than many other bible translations get as far as this work goes. Goodwin is fairly dismissive throughout the work, so the tone remains the same. Here's one of the quotes from the book concerning this translation: "What was understandable as a translation performed in the 17th Century with limited resources and linguistic know-how, is ridiculous when reproduced in the late 20th Century, particularly when the planes of discourse can, as in this case, be saved at very little cost to the reader. Gaus’ Unvarnished New Testament manages to conserve the clues from prominence rather well, at least in the main body of the story, 1 and he does so without straining English grammar or wearying the reader with unfamiliar forms". Now the author does use the abbreviation TUNT once, on page 191. However at the same time I'm still unsure as to whether or not this would be best served summed up in an article about Gaus. I would like to recommend that if this is the outcome, that the article history remain until the moment if/when other sources become available. The problem with searching for offline sources is that you kind of have to know where to look for them and it frequently requires in-person access. I might be able to eventually travel to the VUU's theological library (which is separate from the main library as far as I can remember), but I need to have permission to access it, which would require that I gain permission from another institution, likely VCU. My point in mentioning this is that this will take quite a bit of time since they take great lengths to actively restrict access, hence why I'm so far recommending that the article's history be preserved. I'll try to make a page for Gaus either today or tomorrow. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I applaud your persistence. JMWt ( talk) 15:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply


  • Comment -- I thought it was agreed that all bible translations were notable. This one seems to have had bad reviews, but should that make a difference? Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
As was pointed out to Peterkingiron on 4 October 2015 with this edit he/she is incorrect, there is no common outcome for Bible translations. (See, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restored Holy Bible (deleted June 2015), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete Jewish Bible (deleted 2011), and marginally Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible (deleted October 2015).)
Please point me to consensus that all bible translations are notable. Bad reviews are not going to affect the notability (it could be notable as a translation which is widely considered to be bad). But if the only available sources are very brief and bad, this is going to make writing an article that does not only reference the translation itself as a primary source very difficult. As far as I can see from the totality of the available sources we've all been able to dig up, the translation is barely noticed as existing. A very small number of sources mention its existence, of those few can be considered to be WP:RS. Of those, few cover it in enough depth to be useful to write a balanced article (which itself is going to be difficult if the majority of sources are negative). Based on what we can see referenced, I think even if it is kept, the content will need to be cut down to only that which can be reliably reference in secondary sources. Which is going to be next to nothing. JMWt ( talk) 08:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Andy Gaus. There's possibly enough out there to assert notability and I did find another source during my travels. However at the same time I was able to cover the gist of the article in the one I recently made for Gaus. From what I can see so far, this was the main thing he was known for, apart from his translation of a couple of German works that are frequently cited in academic sources. If the consensus is to keep the book's page then I'd endorse a redirect from Gaus's article to the one for TUV. Also, I'm moving this to the proper title of The Unvarnished Truth since the title has the term "the". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Good work on that, however it doesn't really resolve the issues for me. For our friends who want to keep the article about the translation, the new page doesn't really say much about the detail of the new translation, which one might reasonably want to know about, but will be difficult to cite without using the primary source. And I still don't see that the author is any more notable than the translation, if anything the former page was more informative and useful than this is. JMWt ( talk) 08:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Then add in any missing information. The lack of information in an article should not be a reason to argue against inclusion. As far as his notability goes, I'd say that inclusion in an academic book about Bible translators is a pretty solid sign of notability, paired with the coverage of TUNT. Some of his translations are semi-frequently cited as a source, which can also be seen as a sign of notability. I'm also open to keeping the page for the translation and redirecting Gaus's page. I think at this point there's enough to keep TUNT or Gaus's article, but not really both. True, this guy hasn't received gobs of coverage, but what he has received is enough in my opinion to merit one of the two pages getting kept. The question here is which. I'm leaning somewhat towards a merge into Gaus's page since that enables us to include a bit more information about him as a whole and we can always add in information into Gaus's article from the article for TUNT. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • TUNT is also extensively used as a source in this book. It's also used as a translation source in some works periodically like this one and this one. I'm also unsure if he's the same Andy Gaus that Now to answer your question about Bible translations, for a long while the general rule of thumb was that Bible translations are considered to be inherently notable because of the massive amount of work that goes into translation, since it can take years of work and research and not many people actually did this. There are many "translations" that are just someone re-writing an English translation with some spot checking here and there. Most translations are completed on behalf of notable organizations or institutions, which lends an extra air of authority to these works. Now do I necessarily agree with this? Not entirely. I can certainly see the reasoning behind this but I don't know that translation necessarily makes something automatically notable, although I do think that being a translation does give it an additional oomph. This is a borderline case here and I'm aware of that, but if we were to boil this down to notability for a book, there would be enough here for it to pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Right, points taken. I don't think it is possible to add the information as I don't see any indication that there are secondary sources discussing the translation in this much detail - even whilst acknowledging that there may be offline sources. And I find it very surprising that Andy Gaus does not appear to work at an institution involved in translation. To me, the evidence suggests that this author is not a well-known expert in ancient Greek, is not known for being a bible scholar, is not working at a known academic institute etc. The translation itself appears to me to be more-or-less a vanity publication and I disagree it meets NBOOK. Also I'd be interested to know how you can tell that the Andy Gaus who did the poem translations is the same guy. I've also seen these books, but it seems to me to be a leap to assume it is the same person. JMWt ( talk) 09:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Its the same person. I'd pulled that info from his WorldCat page, which lists him as the author of all of the work currently on his article. For that matter this author bio on Amazon also states that he's the same Gaus that's involved in musical theater. The thing with Amazon bios is that they're almost always written by the author and if not the author, then the publisher. While we can't use the Amazon page as a source for obvious reasons (it's an e-commerce site), this can be used to confirm that this is the same Gaus. Does this automatically prove notability above and beyond? No, but it does widen the net a little as far as coverage goes. Now when it comes to his musical theater, I'm finding some archive hits so between this translation and his musical theater reviews, I think that there's enough to establish notability for the author regardless of whether or not this article is kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
It seems hard to satisfy all parties that this book is notable. Whether a translator is an academic or expert should not be a criterion. That would eliminate quite a number of translations, such as by Kenneth N. Taylor, Helen Barrett Montgomery, J. B. Phillips, Julia Evelina Smith, and also the Twentieth Century New Testament. Let's simply agree that the book has met the criterion of notability and end this. Certainly, it is not as notable as some translations, but it has certainly cleared the bar by now. Merry Christmas to all! Pete unseth ( talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, but I don't like being told to agree when I don't. Your solution does not address my comments, or the !vote of merge by Tokyogirl79. I also note that the example given of Helen Barrett Montgomery is pretty weak given a) that person has a far stronger claim to notability than the person who wrote the translation under discussion here and b) her translation doesn't seem to have a wikipedia page anyway. If anything, that would appear to support Tokyogirl79's position. JMWt ( talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
JMWt, I'm trying hard to understand. I had thought that various editors had aequately addressed your comments. I had just addressed your comment about the translator not being "a well-known expert in ancient Greek, is not known for being a bible scholar, is not working at a known academic institute". That may be more relevant for judging the quality of a translation, but this discussion is about whether the translation itself is notable. Various editors have added several citations in the literature. Again, it was noted that the review in The Bible Translator was negative. But the same journal carried a negative translation of New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which is certainly a notable translation. A negative review in no way affects a book's notability. You are right about the notability of Helen B. Montgomery in comparison to the her translation, but I had brought that up to argue that being a recognized academic was not a measure of a translation's notability.
Here, I think Gaus is only noted for this translation. If there is to be a merger, I strongly suggest merging the Andy Gaus article into this one since his notability is based on this work. Hope this is seen as still trying for peace on earth and good will among all people. Pete unseth ( talk) 17:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
OK, my position is still that the translation is not notable and that the translator is not notable - if the only claim to his notability is a translation which itself is not notable. I take all that has been said above, but I still do not see that the sources satisfy the standards of significant mentions in secondary sources - given that all of the references I've been pointed to and found myself only mention this translation in passing, and then without much depth. I appreciate that this is my personal opinion, you are free to disagree. But my opinion is that the standard for NBOOK has not been met, that GNG is not met and that as an individual there is little to suggest that the translator is notable. On a secondary note, I'd appreciate you not continuing to wish me good wishes for a festival I do not celebrate. In my view that's something you should be wishing your friends and family, not something to sprinkle into a discussion about the inclusion of a topic in an encyclopedia we all contribute to. JMWt ( talk) 18:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
JMWt, the sentence at the end of my last post did not call for anybody to celebrate any holiday. I merely expressed the hope that what I was saying would be seen as trying for peace and goodwill, using a quotation that is familiar and seasonal. Wishing for intangible forms of goodness and joy is not meant to make anybody celebrate anything. It's an encyclopedia we all contribute to. Pete unseth ( talk) 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unvarnished_New_Testament&oldid=1077950828"