Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James and q


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

James and q

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be WP:OR on an obscure religious topic. The image of footballers it includes, File:Pic2.jpg, appears to have been used by the article author for a copyvio scan from a book (this has since been reverted), which indicates the text may also be a copyvio.  Sandstein  06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. J I P  | Talk 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into the existing articles Q document and Gospel of James. The article depends heavily on a single reference, but that doesn't necessarily make the article original research. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While the article as it stands now is essentially an essay, it appears that at least one book has been written on the topic. Given the overpopulated nature of the field, though, I doubt that that's really enough literature to demonstrate notability.  If there are other sources that demonstrate notability of this concept, then stubbify and keep.  Otherwise, Delete it. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge into Two-source hypothesis - Q document and Gospel of James already have articles, and this reads like an essay taken from a single source supporting the Two-source hypothesis. There are also articles for  Gospel harmony, Synoptic Gospels, and Common Sayings Source, among others, which deal with the similarities between the 3 synoptic gospels, and are much better sourced than this one. Joshua Scott (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't help being reminded about these two... =) J I P  | Talk 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I am far from sure that this article is about the "Infancy Gospel of James", which is the subject of the article Gospel of James. If I am right, then we need an article on the "James" to which this article refers.  The Q document is a legitimate (and well-known) artefact of textual criticism, and rightly has an article.  However this article is about an academic's synthesis created following his editing "James", clearly a work of pseudigraphy, which is much better left as an academic article.  It is notable that all the sources are from the same article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Peterkingiron. This topic is well covered elsewhere, as noted. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:51, 8 February 2010 (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.