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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical bible society[edit]

[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)

I don't see that any of the source supplied is an independent source, and nearly none of them have more than a bare mention of the Historical Bible Society, if that. The same is true for the search results produced by Google for "historical bible society". I find nothing to support WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Largoplazo (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I included multiple interviews and appearances with high-profile personalities, including Eric Metaxas. If you have taken the time to watch the linked interviews, you will see that there are adequate external references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keri.ladner (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Although the article has 16 references (footnotes), they are all piled together at the end of the article. It would be much better if each reference were placed immediately after the sentence to which it pertains. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What's called for are references to demonstrate adequately that reliable sources independently of any connection with a subject have seen the subject worthy of substantial coverage. Interviews arranged with (and sometimes by) subject in which the subjects talk about themselves don't convey notability. Largoplazo (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This is entirely a promotional page WP:PROMO. There is no reliable or significant coverage of the subject. A google search turned up 58 trivial results and omitted the remainder as they were substantially the same. The references all focus on the book being promoted by an author which is unrelated to the subject of this page. With one exception: Putting the owner's law firm page here as a citation is pretty desperate. Does that help in demonstrating the significance of a collection of documents. ogenstein (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Looks like an advisement. BneiBrakPhone (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact I would not have bothered to bring this to AfD: I would have just speedily deleted it as blatant spam, but now it's here I will comment instead. Apart from the unashamedly promotional nature of the article, its references are not independent sources, and most of them give little or no coverage of the Historical bible society. In fact the "references" appear to be not so much references for the Historical bible society as promotional links for Daniel Buttafuoco. (The article was created by a SPA all of whose editing, including deleted edits, has been promotion of Daniel Buttafuoco.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2019 (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.