Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 14:6


 * 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. Sr13 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

John 14:6

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A single bible verse without verifiable citation, which appears to have been written only to give a sermon on its meaning (or rather what it means to the author). While I have no doubt there are individual bible passages that are so quoted and prevalent in western civilization that they deserve a wikipedia article analyzing their historical significance...this article and this passage are not even attempting to be such. WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and underlying POV Markeer 21:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to go to Hell, but Delete This article cites no sources, so it is entirely OR. The words are weasley, the interpretations are not verified, and I don't see any 3rd parties referencing this passage, thus making it notable. Regardless of the subject, the article as it stands, does not satisfy requirements for inclusion. Amen. the_undertow talk  21:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's comments. This is not sufficiently backed by reliable, independent sources and is basically comprised entirely of OR. VanTucky  (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Amen brother The_undertow, or if you are a women, sister. I have to agree no Reliable sources, and it is also quite POV. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, amen. This article takes sides in what was a major dispute in theology c. 1530. Bearian 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete with no precedent against re-creation. This is a famous verse, the basis of theological debate for centuries before, and after, 1530. Like all such texts, there is an enormous literature, both from a purely theological and from a history of religion perspective. But the article does not reflect it, and offers little to build upon. So far from being POV, it ignores all the discussion and all the POVs, and is therefore meaningless in an encyclopedic sense.DGG (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - DGG has it about right here - it's not a very good article at all, but could probably *be* one down the road, if someone takes the time to develop it with good critical sources, et al. Hallelujah, and all that. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as biblecruft. 70.55.91.131 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs quite a bit better interpretation than something out of any Christian theology book.Ravenmasterq 18:13, 22 July 2007 (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.