Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laodicean Church

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Laodicean Church
Does not appear to be encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Relisting --AllyUnion (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in here that could conceivably be merged into Seven Churches of Asia, so delete. Pilatus 10:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. Well done!Pilatus 13:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it adds nothing to related articles. Pilatus is right. Peeper 12:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this church is directly addressed in the Book of Revelation (and there is a tome of scholarship on that), it is also mentioned in Colossians as the recipient of another (Pauline?) letter, and it is the site for the 4th cent Council of Laodicea. In addition to the Biblical accounts and Church history, there is (I think) relevant archaeology, (and, no doubt, classical references) to the ancient city. This could also be reported if renamed simply Laodicea - certainly worth an article. (If minor fictional players in transitory works get a mention (see Amee), then real ones in enduring works like the New Testament certainly do!) --Doc (?) 13:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In the Letter to the Colossians that congregation is mentioned just in an aside, and what has come down to us as the Epistle to the Laodiceans is bogus. The Council of Laodicea is obscure and three centuries later than the mention in the Apocalypse. From my previous votes you know that I do not believe in splitting the information atom. Pilatus 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep And expand DV8 2XL 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, in the hope that Dr Doc will improve the article. Uppland 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I asked for that :o - major write begun --Doc (?) 16:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely notable.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. CalJW 22:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable early Christian church. Well done Doc for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and repent for your deletionism.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, good work Doc. Proto t c 12:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, bad faith nomination? --Nicodemus75 10:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, article just rewritten since then --Doc (?) 14:06, 3 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.