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 per WP:SNOW. The outcome seems quite clear and a search brings up a dearth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries[edit]

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

Delete. This is a self-published book from Lulu.com, see "publisher" website: "Currently available for purchase from Lulu Books". Therefore does not meet WP:BOOK. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree/Delete. This also might be considered "original research" in violation of WP:NOR. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries is a published book. It presents original research and the research of others. The proposed article merely cites the book and is not an attempt to present the research itself.Christopher Carpenter (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christopher! Just a bit of explanation: books are not inherently notable because they exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and as such, you would have to show where the book has received coverage in independent and reliable sources. This can be incredibly difficult for most books, regardless of content and publisher, but it's especially hard for books that are self-published. It's also somewhat difficult for religious books to get coverage because there are just so many of them and relatively few places that will review them. Most mainstream publications only review works if they get a huge fan following, are the focus of a lot of controversy, and/or are written by someone very well known. (Think The Purpose Driven Life, Real Marriage, and Joel Osteen, respectively.) I understand that self-published books are unlikely to gain coverage, but Wikipedia can't really make up the difference and there has to be coverage in the here and now. Now a good outlet might be to look into adding your book to some of the Wikias out there like this one, since they don't have as many requirements as Wikipedia does for coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even good enough for use as a reference on WP, let alone a dedicated article. It's a pity that there is no speedy deletion criterion which covers this. St Anselm (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NB CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If this came from a reputable academic publisher, I might have voted to keep it. However the article appears to be little more than an ADVERT for a rather NN book. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WorldCat finds no records of this book. LadyofShalott 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One quick note for Skyerise: being self-published does not automatically mean that a book is non-notable. It just makes it extremely unlikely that it would be, so try to avoid using this as your only rationale for deletion. The reason for this is that once in a blue moon we have things like the Silo series that gain attention despite being self-published, enough to where they even got a traditional publishing gig. It's rare, but it does happen. I'm not saying that you can't say that the book is self-published in the deletion rationale, but make sure to put down something like the book has received no coverage. This makes it easier in the long run because it makes it easier to understand how the book fails NBOOK for any newbies coming into the discussion and if anyone wanted to argue the point later on down the line. (I've seen people argue after an AfD was closed, because the deletion argument really only stated that the book was self-published.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 11 May 2016 (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.