Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical definition of God (2nd 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   delete. Nja 247 08:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical definition of God
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination per decision to relist at DRV. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I transfered it to http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Article_Heaven/Biblical_definition_of_God for posterity. Cheers! <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikademia (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect this essay to Names of God. JJL (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The biblical definition of God comprises far more than the name alone. Please read the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks, but I'm not going to read 6 books to comment on one AfD. I don't doubt that theologians have studied how the Christian bible imagines the term 'god' to be understood. The article is an essay on some specific biblical commentaries that can be redirected to anything listed in its See also section. Are you sure it's helpful to tell everyone posting here what they must do to satisfy your standards for commentary? JJL (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote. Points are raised and discussed.  If you wanted a vote where one didn't have to discuss things, you came to the wrong place.  &#9786;  (Indeed, lack of discussion is why this AFD discussion even exists in the first place.)  You say that you are unwilling to read sources.  As such, how, logically, can you have any foundation for stating how deletion policy, which deals in sourcing, applies?  Please put in the effort to actually look at sources.  They aren't cited for decoration.  They are there to be read and checked.  And they are the prime focus for AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As was pointed out in the original AfD, we have a _very_ large number of articles on God - this one does not add anything significant to them, and, as it stands, fails WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Tevildo (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Where, in our existing articles, are (the Biblical) God's gender and immateriality discussed, for example?  And, given that everything in the article clearly comes from a source, several of which are directly addressing the biblical definition of God head-on, you need to provide more basis for your claim to original research than just an unsupported assertion that it is so. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gender of God and Transcendence (religion), to answer your specific questions. On the more general point, there is no evidence in the article that the topic is discussed by any of the sources under the heading "Biblical definition of God", or anything similar to it - it's just a collection of (adequately sourced _individually_, I'll grant you that) paragraphs that the contributing editor(s) consider to bear on the topic.  I fail to see how that does not come under WP:SYNTH.  The point mentioned below that the first sentence of the lead denies the existence of the purported topic of the article is also relevant, I feel. Tevildo (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe the original AfD concluded with the appropriate decision. I am personally baffled by some of the language in the article (God engaging in commerce with other deities?) and the article cherry-picks the Old and New Testaments to create a distinctive concept that strays too far into WP:OR territory to satisfy NPOV standards. I don't think this requires salvaging, as existing articles already cover the very few salient points raised here. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That "cherry picking" is called, in more usual Wikipedia parlance, "being a stub". See below.  And as for the claim about existing articles, I suggest that you, too, attempt to answer the question posed above. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article starts out by saying that there is not one biblical definition of God. That is what I have always understood. How can there be an article about it then? Borock (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because sources exist that both (a) say this, and (b) go on to discuss the definition, such as it is, that the Bible does give. Some of them are already cited in the article.  Have you looked at what sources exist? Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The brevity of this article, and the specialized selection of material, give the aura of original research. When there are already many articles on a topic, a new one like this should be integrated in some way. I don't see any discussion showing how this fits well with existing articles. Duplication or inconsistency seems inevitable. Even those who voted Overturn in the DRV do not seem to have had a specific idea of what to do with this article. They seemed to hope it would develop. UncleG opened the DRV because nobody noticed he had added new sources. Now that the sources are here, it is still baffling where to take this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For "brevity and specialized selection" you would do better to substitute "stub worked on for just 2 days". These are the nature of stubs.  Stubs are brief, and they are not comprehensive.  Are you truly making the argument that just because something is a stub it therefore has the appearance of original research (despite not actually having the substance), and that therefore a stub should be deleted? If you want to know where to take the article, try to find more sources.  The place to take the article is where sources have already gone.  The article cites several.  If you actually look, you'll find yet more.  You'll find Lewis Sperry Chafer, for example, whose Systematic Theology (ISBN 9780825423406) covers the same ground as this article, and a fair bit more besides, in chapter 14 ("The Attributes of God") which covers personality, simplicity, unity, infinity, eternity, immutability, immensity, and sovreignty, all as part of the biblical definition of God (chapters 13 and 14 explicitly being under a heading of "Biblical Theology"). Claims that this is original research are not based upon looking even at the sources in the article, let alone at what sources exist.  Theologians have studied this, and have studied it specifically, and directly, as the subject of how the Bible defines God, and what it defines God as.  Chafer is one such theologian.  There are others.  Indeed, the first 400 years of Christianity's existence was replete with them, according to David M. Knight and Matthew Eddy (ISBN 9780192805843 pp. 333).  Further evidence that such theology exists is the fact of theologians such as Emil Brunner criticising it, as he does in Dogmatics I, for being "unsatisfactory", albeit "not so dangerous as the speculative method". Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as Synth/OR. Eusebeus (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to justify that, as explained above. A bare statement doesn't do, in the face of sources such as (to pick but one example) Sonsino, which addresses this very subject and analyses it in this very manner.  Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure before I start: I am an atheist, and I feel that while Wikipedia should certainly have content on the tremendously notable Biblical God, we have more than enough God-related articles already. I think comments about the present state of the article (in particular, WP:OR) should be disregarded because the sole purpose of AfD is to determine whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. In other words, it doesn't matter if the existing content is OR or not (and for the record, my position is that it isn't).  What matters is whether appropriate content could be written. Disregarding several earlier comments therefore, I think a certain amount of useful discussion remains, but two questions are being conflated here. The first question is whether well-sourced, encyclopaedic content could be written about the Biblical definition of God, to which my answer would be "absolutely" (and with all due respect to the ingenious arguments from previous editors, I feel that Uncle G is incontrovertibly in the right about this and the opposing position is not tenable). The second question, though, is whether the well-sourced, encyclopaedic content should be in a separate article with this title, and my position is that it should not.  I mentioned in the DRV how many articles could contain this information (and there are a lot), and I feel that further fragmentation of Wikipedia's content on the Biblical God risks creating more confusion among encyclopaedia users than it resolves. So on balance, I feel that this content belongs in God in Abrahamic religions.  I would not object to it being in Conceptions of God, or another similar alternative, if this is felt preferable. If Uncle G is opposed to this suggestion, which I have now made several times, I do not understand on what grounds.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to agree with above. Content may be valid. Article is not in the context. --Sabrebd (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tough one. Yes, some valid content, but not in the right place.  What this article addresses are traditionally described theologically as the Attributes of God (currently a re-direct to God).  The material in question would best fit in God in Abrahamic religions, and I would suggest Merge and redirect to that article. (as an aside, if dealing with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, one would speak of an identity of God, not a definition).  Athanasius • Quicumque vult  15:33, 30 April 2009 (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.