Deletion of The Latin Testament Project

Comment: I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources about this. Even if I assume that the university press published book would have coverage, it would still be one source. Projects like these take time to be noticed and whether it is notable is something which can only be understood after a long time. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability; we add articles once there are enough sources to demonstrate notability. Accordingly, delete this as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I can't find anything that discusses this project that isn't primary or would be considered a  on Wikipedia. There are some YouTube links and other  that discuss the work, but not really anything else. The project seems to exist, but that's about it. It also doesn't help that the page is fairly promotional in tone and appears to have been written to make the project seem more notable and to promote its creator, John Cunyus. The sources in the article aren't usable to show notability as the majority of them are  and the only non-primary source http://www.hendersondailynews.com/rev-john-cunyus/image_6736abbc-b58f-11e5-aae5-aba311a50bc5.html is just a photograph of what looks to be a general discussion on religion, which cannot show notability for this project or at all. Photographs are considered to be  sources except in very rare situations, which this is not. I searched two college databases for this project, one of which is a university that has a religious studies course program (so they'd be more likely to index periodicals and academic sources that would discuss religious topics). Neither had anything that would be usable, as the only source I found that mentioned either the project or Cunyus was a dissertation written by the person himself. As far as it being rare or exceptional, the thing is that Wikipedia requires coverage to show that something is notable and to help verify any claims made. How useful it is () also doesn't give notability either. Something can be done well and be one of the few of its type, but neither give notability on Wikipedia. As far as the review mentioned above goes, we need to be able to verify the source, such as where and when it was written. If it was part of a longer review in an academic journal then it could help show notability, however if it's something that was solicited for the website then that wouldn't give notability since it'd be a routine book blurb. That it was mentioned elsewhere isn't an automatic guarantee of notability either, as you would still have to prove that the referring source would pass RS guidelines. It cannot be self-published and must be put through a reputable outlet known for its editorial oversight, at the very least. Even with that, the source would still need to mention the project in depth to establish notability. One source is not enough to establish notability, however, as most articles need about 3-5 independent, reliable, in-depth sources to establish this - and that's generally seen as on the weak end. The only time 1-2 sources are enough is when they're asserting something extremely major, like a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SPS||WP:PRIMARY||WP:TRIVIAL||WP:ITSUSEFUL)