Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel According to Seneca

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel According to Seneca

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

Not notable, only source is a self-published website, only criticism is another self-published website, a couple of references in Google Books which do not appear to actually refer to the text; otherwise nothing. Nothing about it appears to be verifiable Rbreen (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC) On examining this further, I see that it was proposed for deletion in August 2012 but the process was not completed because the creating editor removed the notice and it was not removed. It was proposed [1] on the basis that "No indication or evidence of notability. All references provided are from a website that consists of the text of the play." This was endorsed on the same day: [2] I'm not sure if this counts as a second deletion or not, since it does not appear to have been continued.--Rbreen (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Another Kolbrin Bible case: what if you faked a document and nobody read it? I'm not quite as down on tektonics.org as others are but I would agree that if this thing were of any importance more establishment sources would exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and no likelihood of there ever being any for what appears to be a self-published internet hoax. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 11 January 2014 (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.