Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ the Logos

Jesus Christ the Logos

Original research - article whose sole purpose is to argue a theological position. NawlinWiki 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment When I nominated this article, the first thing you saw was an argument: Chalcedonian Christology is not a Syncretism with Platonism. A diligent user has since edited the article so that it's descriptive rather than argumentative. I'm not an expert on this, but it may be that the problem has been solved. NawlinWiki 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I was that "diligent" user. There is still an NPOV issue hidden in the tail that I could not easily massage away, but it is not overwhelming and will hopefully be dealt with in the normal way. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR especially. Changing my vote to Keep per GRberry below. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Q- What did the casual observer say when he walked into the graphic design convention? --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Holy smokes, the motifs"? David L Rattigan 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David L Rattigan 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Doesn't argue a theological position; it explains one. It's encyclopedic, NPOV, and educational. (NB: the apparent four delete votes above are duplicates from two editors.) --The Editrix 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two delete votes above (excluding the nominator). David L Rattigan 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Lambian's edits. hateless 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see there is already an article on the Logos, which overlaps with this article considerably. Possible merge? David L Rattigan 21:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the history, it sure looked like OR at first. But the best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article - nice job Lambian. It is now encyclopedic, mostly NPOV, educational, and better verified than most articles here. (In fact it would look more like a Wikipedia article if we lost the non-references from the bibilography.) If merged to Logos it would create an undue weight problem in that article. It might reasonably become a child article of it, however, possibly merging some of the relevant section there into this article. GRBerry 01:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hateless. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge with logos, the two are completely un-related. Merge with the myth of Jesus Christ, but not a Greek concept introduced by Heraclitus some 500 years before. Typical Christian attempt to monopolize all original thought that came before it.