Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John 15

POV, original research. RickK 05:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per RickK -- Dvyost 14:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all articles about individual Bible verses, especially POV ones. — JIP | Talk 16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not an article on a verse but an important and highly influential biblical chapter (in literature, art and theology). Yes, it is/was highly POV (I’ve done a quick basic clean-up). But tell me is POV content now a reason for deletion rather than clean-up??? There is nothing POV in the title or existence of the subject matter. --Doc (?) 17:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blasphemy and abomination. However you cleanup, it is still POV, unless you present the opinions of reputable theologists, not suspicious wikipedians. mikka (t) 21:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but this still goes to content, and not to the suitability of the subject for an article - is it thus a grounds to delete rather than rewrite?? --Doc (?) 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Bible Chapter. Individual verses need articles too. Klonimus 21:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Individual selections from the Bible can be notable in their own right. As explained in the article, this chapter distinguishes itself as the source of notable themes in Christology, Christian art, memorials, and trinitarian theology. As encyclopledic explications of Biblical passages go, this is actually not bad. Dystopos 21:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When they don't source material in them, articles about important bible verses should be kept. Mgm|(talk) 23:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as article is original research. Kel-nage 23:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no individual articles for Bible verses! Please! Revolución 23:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But it isn't! --Doc (?) 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Highly encyclopedic. The Christian Bible is among the world's most influential books. Articles on its content are very relevant. If the content itself needs improvement or POV correction, then it should go through a cleanup process, not the VfD process. There's tons of potential analytical, historical, and sociological content for every chapter of the bible (and the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Tao Te Ching, Book of Mormon etc. I'm truly baffled by those that want to avoid religious content on Wikipedia. Ironically, I'm an atheist. Tobycat 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 03:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - User:Doc glasgow has drastically improved the article since it was first nominated. I see neither POV problems nor original research in the current version. As mentioned before, POV and original research are problematic, but are not cause for deletion. Deletion is for articles with no prospect for becoming encyclopedic. Blanket votes against individual chapter or verse articles should address that question alone. This article is a decent example of why particular passages can be notable in their own right. Dystopos 03:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Perfectly fine article. I fail to see what's POV about it. --Fazdeconta 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't see anything POV about John 15 is a chapter in the book of John, found in the Holy Bible- the source of pure Christian teaching. and 1) the greatest command: "Love each other as I have loved you." (vss 12, 17) and 6) Jesus' promise to give us what we ask for (in his name- meaning that what we ask for would be inspired by him) when we cling to him and obey his command to love each other. (vss 7, 8, 16)? RickK 22:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • NB that was in the article before clean-up - since removed as POV material --Doc (?) 22:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 07:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but Fazdeconta doesn't seem to understand why the article was initially listed here. RickK 04:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the cleaned up version. Incidentally, for all of you voting "no bible verses", I agree with you, but this is a chapter. That's a slight difference. --Scimitar 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's been cleaned up. I also somewhat agree with Scimitar's above comment. JYolkowski // talk 20:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.