Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codex Roden Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Codex_Roden

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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Roden

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

Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:V. I find zero hits for "Codex Roden" on google. Appears to be the name given to a particular copy of A TREATSIE ON THE LAWS OF NATURE owned by this family. Surely books owned by a notable person aren't notable by themselves, right? Contested PROD, prod removed with following comment: "This book is paticualrily rare due to the original owners and the friendship of the book printer," though that only supports deletion in my mind. See also WP:NOTINHERITED. Ravendrop 05:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Treatise of the Laws of Nature is a notable book, however, I can't find any connection between this tractate and so called "Codex Roden". The information is unverifiable by reliable and independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 9 March 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.