Deletion of What's In The Bible

Comment: Looking at the original there was not enough external citations, however the current version establishes notability through |substantial third-party coverage, most of whom have an alexa rank of under 100K. In addition taking a quick look at either "find sources" links below you can quickly see hundreds of blogs talking about the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This would be close in the event that |substantial third-party coverage existed of the subject, but it doesn't.  Although I have to admit I was highly amused by the content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There are a number of reasons blogs are not valid references.  Just because something is in print or believed by the masses does not make it true.  (i.e., 33% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the earth, 49% of US adults and students think that ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, but genetically altered do.)  Alexa ranking does not measure credibility or reliably, only hits.  TMZ and Perez Hilton probably have high ranking, but I would question their credibility/reliability.  You refer to other articles not having references better than this one, but that has no bearing on this AfD.  See .USER:reddogsix|reddogsix
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)