Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination)

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. T. Canens (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolbrin Bible

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

Not a single source listed that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG. Article on this topic previously deleted once. Hoax manuscript.DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Non-notable hoax document. Sources are extremely unreliable and none of the content has the slightest encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Although great efforts have been made, I fear it's impossible to write and maintain an encyclopædic and neutral article, as the overwhelming majority of sources are those which take this hoax seriously. As a hoax, rather than as a genuine document, the notability is minimal. If it is not salted, the article will be recreated soon enough, presenting the hoax as fact. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It appears that articles with the same or similar content have been deleted ~~THREE~~ FOUR times before this. See Kolbrin. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make it four times: The Kolbrin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, salting the alternative previously-used titles as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to recommend keeping this as an article about a notable hoax, or fake ancient document. The problem is that I have been unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable, independent sources. It is certainly a hoax, but a non-notable one at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever this is about, somebody besides Wikipedia editors need to figure it out. Should assume that this is an advertising campaign for now. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the (current version) author As I said elsewhere I have pretty much written the article that we would have liked someone else to have written as a source; it's really a research piece. Unfortunately the one apparently strong source for criticism has thus far proven unobtainable. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned up this source, and it really doesn't add that much; I also think that people might dispute its reputability though the website in question was produced under the aegis of Damian Thompson. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately Cullen seems to be correct in his assessment.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Milowent. Perhaps you could take this worthy research, Mangoe, and go on to interview a couple of experts on ancient manuscripts. Then, submit it for publication in some reliable source. Once it is published, let us know, and maybe then it would be time for a Wikipedia article. Good luck with this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a real book with a title similar to this see [1], but I'm only seeing 8 copies of 2 editions in libraries and two booksellers trying to sell it to me. This speaks to me of their self-publishing or print on demand. Another book [2] by two people with the same names has similar stats. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If there is an actual, physical copy out there, than this work becomes more substantial than the usual internet hoaxes. If an editor can be found with a copy, the article can be converted into an article on a fictitious work, rather than the current non-fiction /hoax article.--Auric (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an "actual physical copy" of an original. There are only self-published supposed translations. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. There are real self-published alleged translations, there is no original. There is one source which might be considered reliable for fringe topics that discusses it, but it's just a website. I wish there was something more substantial but since there isn't.... Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - i hate that this stuff is fake. i want the real book! even if it is a 19th century hoax! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2011 (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.