Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. I'll just let the merge tags stay on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies in the Bible

This article should be deleted for reasons similar to those stated above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible: 1) There already exists Internal consistency and the Bible, so why is this article needed or justified (besides just being another avenue to attack the Bible)? Does every article get to have an "opposite" mirror-image nemesis created? 2) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Internal consistency and the Bible and Criticism of Christianity. 3) It creates confusion with the topic of the Documentary hypothesis which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 4) this topic is just trolling. 5) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Authorship of the Pauline epistles. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Biblical canon; Biblical inerrancy; Names of God in Judaism; Synoptic problem; Textual criticism; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Biblical inconsistencies article does not exist, it REDIRECTS to: Internal consistency and the Bible, and as is stated very clearly above, i.e. the Internal consistency and the Bible article is not the article we are voting on here! It remains thus far. Rather, the vote is to delete the newer article Inconsistencies in the Bible with its information that is redundant and tendentious. I hope User:Geni was not trying to confuse anyone... IZAK 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the talk page of the article you have listed for deletion Biblical inconsistencies was moved to Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible as mentioned on the VFD page. If we then go to the talk page we find here that the article was then moved to Inconsistencies in the Bible. IT's the same article just a somewhat complex history.Geni 12:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Geni: Now you are mentioning another REDIRECT. What you say still makes no sense since there is no Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible article because it merely REDIRECTS to Inconsistencies in the Bible (and it's already been made very clear that Biblical inconsistencies REDIRECTS to Internal consistency and the Bible.) This does not change anything because the basic information about all this can be found in the Internal consistency and the Bible article (so why make a comment about something which does not exist...very puzzling don't you think?). To have two articles about the same subject makes no sense whichever way you slice (or redirect) it. IZAK 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Those redirect exist because the article has been moved around somewhat.Geni 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know nothing about this debate, but from the looks of it so far, i'm doubting this afd will result in a clear consensus at this rate. I'd suggest an rfd instead, but that won't really work unless the reforms go into place. Karmafist 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. The article is original research having no place in an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 13:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Internal consistency and the Bible and redirect. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize this page as a PoV fork of the other one - Looking at the page histories of both, this page here is the older of the two, so, if anything, it seems to be rather Internal consistency and the Bible that has forked off (but I'd prefer Internal consistency and the Bible as a more NPOV title). Lukas (T.|@) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Lukas. Kusma (討論) 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and re-write Highly redundant with "Internal consistency..." Any new information can be re-written to remove POV and then the two articles can be merged Avi 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe that it can be rewritten, the article is fatally flawed Kempler video 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title itself is POV, as many people dispute the existence of inconsistencies in the Bible. Logophile 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. Really, what is the point? (And the Jewish view is given rather short shrift in favor of more Bible-trashing.) Yoninah 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge what's worth merging and redirect to the more neutral title Internal consistency and the Bible. Outright deletion seems inappropriate: the title is not horribly offensive, it's a moderately likely thing for someone to try to look up, and if we delete it, someone will probably just recreate it, better to redirect it to the appropriate article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. KHM03 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nomination. Review of relevant articles shows little in the article to be deleted that does not exist elsewhere. Alansohn 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Likely search term so don't delete, but Speedy redirect to Internal consistency and the Bible checking for any potentially useful stuff which isn't already in the latter article and transferring it. SP-KP 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. Yid613 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per SK-KP -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork-Doc ask? 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. The article Internal consistency and the Bible is also questionable, it looks like an invitation for trolling as most claims of inconsistency in the Bible are based on (often deliberate) misunderstanding of what is being said in the Bible. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Jmabel Jkelly 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Rachel1 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Lukas. Ocicat 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge but only salvage what is really necessary from this one. DLand 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK — Hillel 08:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's POV by definition: the title admits there are inconsistencies. Latinus 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for further review - AFD is not the right medium to fight content disputes; it's not clear from initial inspection of the articles, claimed "correct" articles to be kept, comments, or the AFDs where neutrality is here. Leave it alone and solve with another mechanism, unless POV clarifies somehow. Georgewilliamherbert 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per George. Arbustoo 09:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Per nom. --Turkmen 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shuki 11:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete pointless. Klonimus 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and redirect the title to the existing article to discourage recreation. Thryduulf 13:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - title begs the question, and it is grossly redundant. --Leifern 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since previous attempts at re-directs and merges haven't worked, Delete this POV original research article fork. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article suffers from lack of source citations, but it is a legitimate topic and one that has been a matter for discussion for centuries. Bishop Colenso's examination of it rocked the Victorian world. There are NPOV problems in the article and in its title and they should be dealt with. Even fundamentalists acknowledge the existence of issues, for which I believe they prefer to use the word "difficulties." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge with Internal consistency and the Bible or keep. This strikes me as being the stronger of the two articles. Deletion is not the solution in NPOV disputes. Shmuel 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for all the above arguments Issac 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Lukas. RayGates 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Evolver of Borg 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This article and Internal consistency and the Bible have too much shared information to justify them both existing. --Andrew c 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per dpbsmith. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)\
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Tomertalk 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above reasons and arguments Cybercat 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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.