Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESV Study Bible

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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESV Study Bible

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

This is a product which has no reason to be on the Wiki. Not every book or product requires an article on the Wiki. Please delete with haste. Even if this article is sourced correctly or even rewritten I see no reason to keep it. DeusImperator (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been given. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and/or WP:SNOW Keep - Obvious notability, no valid reason given for deletion. Fieari (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nominator does not clarify why the article should be deleted. - Taketa (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has enough references to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, plenty of references covering reception, etc. already in the article. Nom appears to need to understand deletion/inclusion criteria better. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This work has enough sources to qualify as notable, barely. But in the end it does. Basileias (talk) 22:44, 2 October 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.