Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Books of the Bible. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture

Unnecessary and redundant of Books of the Bible —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point to the instructions for how to discuss merging redundant articles, but you seem to know what they are already. If you want an article merged, merge it! AFD is not a way to force other people to do work that one wants done, is able to do, but doesn't actually do. Don't keep renominating an article for deletion just to get a merger done. Do the merger! {{sofixit}} applies. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response But I would merge it and then mark the redirect for deletion, as it is an improbable search term. What's the difference? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - … and people would have rejected deleting the redirect if you had transferred content from the one to the other, per the requirements of the GFDL. Deletion is not involved in any step of the article merger process. Either you want this merged, or you want it deleted. The two are not compatible. One cannot have one's cake and eat it too. You marked it for merger a year ago, so presumably you want it merged. Certainly, a number of editors in the first AFD discussion did. A number of the editors in the second AFD discussion did, too, and none of them wanted an administrator to hit a delete button, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, and an improbable search term. DGG (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is, as was spotted by Afalbrig in the second AFD discussion. There's a whole load of Eastern Orthodox apocrypha missing from the supposed target, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missed that, probably due to the multiple gaps in the present article. eg. The RC canon not containing Job! i would not consider adding the material to the main article a merge, just an addition. The present article is too unreliable to use. DGG (talk)

Merge To Books of the Bible. Two articles on the same subject are not required. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that's properly sourced to books of the Bible. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.