Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonical gospels

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.124.73.48 (talk) at 22:55, 20 October 2011 (→‎Canonical gospels). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Canonical gospels

Canonical gospels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N WP:OR This article is not notable and contains original research. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per WP:TNT. I cannot believe this was nominated - is this a joke? The subject is so obviously notable. There may well be OR (though I note there are almost 200 footnotes) but that's no reason to bring it here. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK< I see now the edit-warring that happened in April. It looked like then that the nominator was arguing for keeping the article, so I don't know why he has nominated it for deletion. The topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of the page, I am changing my vote on this one. The article is substantially the same as when it was first created by the nominator. And it is rather biased, and doesn't stick to the topic. I don't think there is any hope for the article in its present form, so I am voting to delete it and start over. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The edit history of the article is here. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My AfD was not a joke. It was done in good faith. I agreed with John Carter on the talk page that, to turn something into a redirect, simply by fiat, is not the way we do things at Wikipedia. And, yes, even if it is turned into a delete or to something else, it would probably be useful to have some debate. An AFD, would allow broader discussion. Very good points have been made on both sides of the argument re deletion. I will keep an open mind and fully support the consensus position that comes out of the AfD discussion.
True, the subject is obviously notable and there are almost 200 footnotes but the issue of OR had to do with synthesis. Editors must not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTH. The article is based largely upon Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, Trinity Press International, 2000. Since he is the leading scholar in this area and the conclusions are from his book, there is no original research. Others disagree.- Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I agree with StAnselm that the topic is "certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article". As the gospels are distinctive from other N.T literature WP:CFORK is not an issue. During the edit war in April some of the article was merged into other articles but the "duplicated material" can be easily "de-merged".
I also agree that the subject is "obviously notable" and with "almost 200 footnotes" OR is not an issue.Google Books
I agree with Ignocrates WP:SYNTH is usually not a good reason for deletion or redirect. There are no "original conclusions" as the content of the article can be found in Martin Hengel's,The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels
- Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I appreciate your comments, you have already voted "delete" by nominating the article for deletion. Is this how you intended to vote all along? Because that looks like Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You can withdraw your nomination, but the discussion won't be eligible for Wikipedia:Speedy keep. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't a participant in the edit wars over this article, but I believe the background is that an editor on the other side of this dispute redirected the article as a means of deleting it without discussion. That was perceived by some other involved editors as an abuse of process. This AfD is an attempt to correct for that apparent abuse of process by seeking wider community involvement and a more thorough discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ignocrates is correct. I carefully checked Wikipedia policy on AfD and learned that an AfD is not "a vote" but rather a way of reaching consensus. My nomination of this article is permitted as I was not trying to win "a vote" but rather end an edit war by opening the discussion to the wider Wikipedia community. Although I now believe that the article should be kept, I intend to keep an open mind as the discussion progresses. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not all WP:CFORKs are bad by definition. I think the key question is whether Gospel#Canonical gospels merits a WP:SPINOFF to discuss the canonical gospels as a group in more detail than was done in the parent article. If the answer to that question is "yes" then the article should be retained. Content can always be improved by more sources, more NPOV, better writing, etc. The principal issue here seems to be the organization of the content in a hierarchy: Gospels --> Canonical Gospels --> Matthew/Mark/Luke/John individually. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except the "current article" is a redirect. That was the consensus position, and stood for about three months before this AFD. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You scared me with your statement that "the 'current article' is a redirect." I checked and the article was restored by me before the Afd and everything was done strictly according to Wikipedia policy. Now we should work toward a "consensus" which will end the edit warring. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I may not have the facts in quite the right chronological order as far as who did what to whom. Any easy way to solve this problem is to continue to develop the content in Gospel#Canonical gospels. If that section becomes too large, a discussion about a spinoff can always be revisited. Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent suggestion. Then we might eventually get a spin-off article specifically about canonical gospels, unlike the present article, which is just a WP:CFORK of existing articles, and is better WP:DYNAMITED. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that is the issue. At this point there seems to be consensus that the article is "notable" and "OR" is not a problem. My position that the topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article. I suggest a quick trip to the reference section of your local library. Most references follow the same format as the article. Also reading Martin Hengel's,The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels will be helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present article does have WP:SYNTH and WP:POV issues, and that the topic is much better covered by existing articles like Gospel, Development of the New Testament canon, New Testament apocrypha, and Synoptic Gospels. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canonical_gospels&oldid=456593235"