Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarity of scripture


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarity of scripture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a soapbox with a couple of spam links, broken links, mainly citations that fail wp:rs, with some OR to boot P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi - I've added the article. I understand it fails to comply with many of wikipedia's rules, as do many new articles added from public domain sources, however, I hope that myself and other interested editors can rectify that.  The article is relevant to wikipedia as it describes an important aspect of the evangelical Christian understanding of the Bible which isn't accurately or clearly described by other articles in the area like Biblical literalism.NZUlysses (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapboxing. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that Ten Pound Hammer wrote this article on theopedia.com, or that he added it to wikipedia? I have copied the article from theopedia.com and can assure you I have no relation to that wikipedia user - I've never heard of him!  I could be accused of not knowing appropriate rules for adding articles, since I'm not a frequent editor - do you want to make a case in that vein? NZUlysses (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't jump to conclusions. I'm TenPoundHammer, that was just my signature. I think that the article's soapboxing. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies. I know the article is not NPOV yet but clarity of scripture is an important part of some forms of evangelical doctrinal positions.  Isn't it better to revise the article to come from a more neutral point of view, including more criticism of the doctrine? NZUlysses (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better to introduce the concept (if valid) to an article, from scratch, and expand from there. When you start so far off base, there isn't much of a chance it will get to develop as there are more people who find fault with it than there are that willing to fix it.  Short version: not having the article is better than a very very bad one.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I don't think it's that bad though - I've created the article in order to further discussion of beliefs on the Biblical literalism page.  There's probably no scholarly work done to support Biblical literalism; however, the clarity of scripture article does cite one scholarly paper from a seminary about perspicuity of scripture.  See my points on the article's discussion page. NZUlysses (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: original research. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - reads like a term paper for a Seminary or Bible College. If it is really a subject for an article outside the extensive ones we already have on the various perspectives held on Scripture, then it needs to be started again with full referencing of sources and not just lifted from another website. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it can be cleaned up, and have tagged it for rescue. It may also be appropriate to merge or redirect it, but I think deleting it outright might be a touch to WP:BITEy. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that at this point, the article appears to be a mere seven hours old. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -Tadakuni (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete soapboxing. Clubmarx (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Non notable, part OR, per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. And clean-up POV and Soapboxing concerns. Articles should avoid having criticism sections, including "Pro" and "Con" links and references. Instead, per WP:NPOV these should be presented dispassionately and in conjunction presenting the reader with well sourced content from which they can draw there own conclusions. As for sources Google books show 400+ hits including a handful that seem devoted to the subject. --  Banj e  b oi    14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify - notable subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that *if* we get 100% away from the current version, which is fatally flawed, and insure it never rears its ugly head again. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability seems to have been established with an abundance of sources, OR is a problem to be fix through regular editing. -- Banj e  b oi   19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of easily accessible, reliable source material Google books, Google scholar, Google news. Not soapboxy (at least not as of this post). Seems like an ordinary article conveying information about a Protestant Christian position teaching. -- Suntag  ☼  01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD isn't the place to clean up articles. It's verifiable and notable, the article needs a lot of work, but that's not to say it's deletion worthy. If there is OR, remove it. If needed, stubify and rebuild. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, soapboxery and synthesis. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not seeing blatant OR or soapboxing in the current version, which contains very little of the original import from Theopedia (which I agree was wholly inappropriate). The subject itself is clearly notable and if there are any remaining problems which I haven't spotted, they can be easily dealt with by stubbing it further. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per improvements and obvious notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 2 October 2008 (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.