Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan and David

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 3 merge, 9 keep.


 * Keep  Shinaldo 01:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote is Shinaldo's only edit. dbenbenn | talk 21:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan and David
This article should be merged with David. It is mainly about David's interaction with Jonathan, which has been the subject of universal speculation but still not enough to warrant its own article. JFW | T@lk  09:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete. JFW | T@lk  09:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep there's nothing wrong with this article. Michael Ward 09:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very nice article.  RickK 09:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but on it's own? JFW | T@lk  09:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: as the nominator mentioned, it's "been the subject of universal speculation." But I think there is enough to merit a full article: certainly a fully expanded discussion of Jonathan and David debate would bog down their individual articles. Samaritan 09:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Most of the narrative information should be pared. I'm unfamiliar with WP policy with Biblical citations, but speaking for myself having a citation every sentence is death to readablity. There are NPOV problems as well. The article's whole reason for existence, the debate over the nature of the relationship, is actually rather threadbare. Needs a whole lot of work, but the subject is worthy of inclusion. Khanartist  10:46, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Your comment about the readability is well noted. I (and I hope others) plan to improve on this in the future, but cut me some slack! It's only been up for two days!! I was just quickly trying to outline the bare bones of the story and the debate surrounding it. Thanks for recognizing its potential though. Queerudite 22:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep not sure I like the title though. Sounds like a sitcom. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  12:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article! I found the article to be thought provoking and unbiased.  The author provides substantial reasons in support of both viewpoints. This article should be on its own page since it is an in depth discussion on the relationship between David and Jonathan.  Figaroo 02:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The page for David is already fairly substantial, and it doesn't seem right to crowd it with this. I only started it two days ago!! I haven't had time to really expand it more. Right now it's just an outline. I hope to expand on the narrative and both interpretations, with external links and citations. I was also going to add a section on its similiarity to the same-sex warrior love relationships common to that era of writing (such as between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the The Epic of Gilgamesh which parallels this narrative similiarly). It's too much info for the David page, and this article has enough substance to stand on its own. Please give this an article a chance to grow! Queerudite 22:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to David and delete. No redirect. Megan1967 00:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting information. Merging to David would make the page too long. Keeping the subjects separate should do the job. Glaurung 09:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep" This article sheds light on the often unexplored relationship of David and Jonathan. It's well written and deserving of inclusion. Artichoke360 22:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote is Artichoke360's only edit. dbenbenn | talk 21:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is too extensive to be merged with the David article, and should remain seperate. It is also articulate and well balanced, and deserves to remain purely on its own merits. Moonblade85 00:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote is Moonblade85's only edit. dbenbenn | talk 21:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Poorly written, but we should still keep. Josh Cherry 03:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.