Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Orthodox view of sin


 * 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   Keep.. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox view of sin

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

The content of the article does not establish that the subject is notable enough to require its own article, as opposed to content in Sin or Eastern Orthodox Church. Mrhsj (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Eastern Orthodox Church. Knippschild (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Eastern Orthodox Church is already 111K. This is a quite notable topic - the views of a major religion on one of it's central postulates.  Merging is out of the question, deleting is out of the question. Wily D  10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that they are not in favor of it. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag for exapnsion. The vast majority of the presetn article is actually the Eastern Orthodox view on sexulaity.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, and improve references per above. Eastern Orthodoxy is certainly notable to have major doctrines broken out into WP:SS, and this article should play that role. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - it is a bit WP:ORish for me. Springnuts (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable as being about an important area of doctrine in a major religious tradition. Needs expansion and better sourcing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Though the topic may be notable, the poor state of this article suggests to me that it should be deleted. Reading through the article, there just isn't anything to merge; the portions that might be desirable there are devoid of sources. This article is essentially a lot of OR, and so should be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:01, 27 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.