Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Formative Keys to the Progression of Early Church History


 * 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 delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

4 Formative Keys to the Progression of Early Church History

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is pure and simply an essay. The information is available through other articles. StAnselm (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- 202.124.72.63 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no proper reason for deletion.  No argument as to which specific article this duplicates.  Looks very much like an argument to avoid in deletion discussion, specifically WP:UGLY.  The link by the nom speaks of WP:OR, which has not been demonstrated here.  Recommend procedural close without prejudice.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's very easy to demonstrate. There is no reliable source suggesting that these are the "4 formative keys". StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Material duplicated: History_of_early_Christianity. Also Ante-Nicene_Period but that's barely more than a stub. What might be worth combining into a "good article" would be a proper merge of content from "4 formative keys" with "Ante-Nicene" with the "Period" section of the History article.--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If its not OR, isn't it WP:SYNTH?--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You fail to grasp my meaning. This AfD was created to delete a page because it is written as an essay.  That is not a reason for deletion.  (Nor that it is no more than a stub.)  If the article is to be deleted for other reasons, close this and open a new, proper AfD under accurate reasoning.  This should have been procedurally closed from the start.  Also note that there is a proper merge discussion method that does not require AfD.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep . The tone of the page is didactic and it reads like a classic POV essay, even if the factual content is well-sourced. If it stays, the article needs a drastic rewrite. Is the subject sufficiently notable?  "Progression of Early Church History" is notable, but is this collection of "formative keys" sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article?--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge per everything. Unless someone can make a better case for it's notability.--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GNG, which this article meets (per your own admission "...even if the factual content is well-sourced.") --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge -- This is WP:ESSAY. It brings together material on Irenaeus, Tetullian and Origen and on the Cappadocian Fathers.  All of this is better dealt with in separate articles on them or a general history of the Early Church.  That they are the four formative keys seems to be mere POV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete relocating any useful new material The title is not a recognisable allusion to anything I have seen in patristic studies as a theme, or label of a group. Does it appear in any academic Dictionary of Church History?  I question whether the phrase "Progression of Early Church History" is notable: even if it were, there is no specific notability of these four which justifies the choice of these "Four Keys".  Significantly, this claim in the lead-section is not supported by any reference.  The four subjects have their own articles and any material found here but not in the originals could be transferred as suggested in earlier comments. Furthermore the four thinkers are presented as the formative part of the "progression of Church History" but the article deals basically with their theologies and the history of theology is but a part of the much wider panorama of Church History.
 * Note – There is a similar article by the same original author at 4_Keys_to_Christian_Theological_Progression_(approx._400%E2%80%931300) which is open to exactly the same type of criticism.
 * Jpacobb (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2012 (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.