Deletion of Coelbren Rhodd

Comment: Whether this is a forgery or a fake is neither here nor there. What matters is whether it's had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The answer to that is no, as far as I can tell. The cited sources are 1) primary sources because of their age and hence do not qualify as establishing notability and 2) in any event don't contain enough information on the subject to establish it as notable even if they were reliable. I did a search and could find no additional evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Are there any such sources offline? Until we can see evidence that such sources exist, the correct course is delete in my view for failing to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination) for a similar case. The final version of that article was a piece of  which I cobbled together myself. We aren't doing even that well for this. Also, it's hard to find ''any'' references to this, whether or not they take it seriously
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)