Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codex Turicensis

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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Turicensis

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

Not stylish. Aren't wiki-links. Aren't references, external links. In my opinion, text was a copied. ... Lhealt _(talk) 13:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please improve the style.

External links are. Wiki-links too. Don't delete the text. --Passauer Andreas (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lhealt: "Not stylish" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. If the article lacks referecnes, find some. Articles should only be deleted if they fail to meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will ask the psychological question: I have made the article without references, without the wiki links, without external links, without anything, and it will take two years. Do not delete?--... Lhealt _(talk) 14:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]

Speedy keep: A WP:BEFORE check of Google Books locates sufficient references to this book over a long period. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copy vio of An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as obviously notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the description in this article is similar to the cited source, it is not a close enough paraphrase to qualify as a copyright violation. (There really are only so many ways one can describe this particular document.) The document itself is clearly notable as a much studied early Biblical text. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The text had changed and completed.--Passauer Andreas (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Manuscript is obviously notable, cf. all the sources that can be found as AllyD notes. I was contemplating closing this per SNOW, but I'm glad I took a closer look at Mangoe's remark. WikiDan61, almost every word of this article was verbatim identical to

Henry Barclay Swete; Henry St. John Thackeray (8 April 2010). An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas. Cambridge University Press. pp. 142–. ISBN 978-1-108-00758-0.

I have removed the copy-vio. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:07, 3 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.