Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Bible Translation

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real Bible Translation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A new Bible translation project apparently run by the article creator, with no indication of notability, and no coverage online apart from the project's own blog. The article is entirely original research, with none of the references actually mentioning the project, since they all predate it (including one from 1862). Speedy deleted once already. Storchy (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Software. Storchy (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant references. No assertion of notability.--Jahaza (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy candidate because "a new Bible translation" is a per se assertion of importance. Having said that, I don't see any RS coverage in the usual places, and note that most of the article is COATRACK. While I applaud the self-disclosure of COI, I am struggling to see how this is appropriate for Wikipedia yet. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no coverage by any reliable third-party sources that I could find. This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON, but the subject fails WP:GNG and I don't know what other notability guideline would apply? WP:NBOOK? WP:NSOFT? It fails those too. As a note, if the article is to be kept then it needs serious work; that lede is overly-technical and the conclusions in the "Traditional Stories Challenged" section are unsourced WP:OR filled with WP:WTA. - Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sourcing develops if ever. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. Interesting little article, but it reads like an ad. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this translation is notable, there should be independent reliable sources discussing it. Maybe there will be such sources in the future, but no such sources are cited here yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but tag for imporvement -- The one substantive reference appears to show this is a research project from a Dutch university's school of theology. As such, the sources needed may be non-English ones. The majority of the valid sources appear to be sources for statements in the article. As some one who has studied the New Testament in Greek and English, it soon becomes apparent that one Greek word is liable to be translated in several different ways. This becomes a problem when an English translation is used as the source to translate into a third language, leading to a significant risk of mistranslation. I believe there is a translators' version, designed to avoid this difficulty by translating the same word in the same way. No doubt this also applies to Hebrew. This appears to be an attempt to get around that problem for the Old Testament. Accordingly this seems to me an important research project, but I accept that there is a dearth of independent sources regarding the article. The solution is to tag for improvement, rather than deletePeterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "one substantive reference" I assume you mean the reference to the Eep Telstra Centre? Unfortunately that reference doesn't mention this project, and the article only says that the RBT project is using Eep Telstra's ETCBC database, which is open to researchers outside of the Centre [1], so it doesn't necessarily mean that this is a research project from the Dutch university's school of theology. Perhaps the article creator can clarify. Storchy (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate User:Peterkingiron's usual attention to the small details and his concern there may be Dutch language materials we are missing. I went looking for any related papers in Dutch in case anything had indeed been missed. There are none though. The project appears to be lead by an individual, MP (I don't name him from an excess of caution - he names himself on the project pages), This individual is apparently from Cleveland, Tennessee according to his public linked in profile, and not based at ETCBC. This is not a project of ETCBC; it is privately funded through Patreon support. It claims to use the Text-Fabric Python module, and the BHSA data graph built by ETCBC. Indeed, github has the code, and the relevant BHSA code is labelled "Forked from ETCBC/bhsa". The ETCBC code is released as open source software. There are no WP:RS about what is being claimed, and the page is clearly written by MP himself as a means of self promotion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2022 (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.