Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistics and the Book of Mormon


 * 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. John254 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon
It's an odd AfD where the same user who created the AfD also casts the first vote for "Keep". See Reswobslc's insertion of his replacement of a Keep vote in place of the initial debate over the AfD, here. Also, every vote so far has also been keep. There is no one apparent, including the proposer of the AfD, who feels otherwise. This seems like a good candidate for Speedy Keep. Admins? - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 02:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It only appears odd - if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true - read carefully. I did not cast the vote - rather, I took an off-topic discussion and summarized it into a "keep" vote on behalf of the user that initiated the discussion who obviously feels the article should be kept.  But with no other support for deleting it, the speedy keep might as well happen. Reswobslc 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with what Reswobslc did with my original entry, although I don't consider my discussion to be off-topic. I am in favor of keeping the article and working out any npov issues editors identify. --TrustTruth 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Resume chronological discussion:


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a wikified essay merely arguing that linguistic analysis proves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as being of ancient origin - a highly controversial claim. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and is not balanced at all. Its brief mention of opposing viewpoints is for the purpose of rebutting them. A more appropriate title would be "Linguistic reasons why the Book of Mormon is true", but then that would only make it more obvious that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Reswobslc 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:TrustTruth - apparently feels that Criticism of Mormonism is a comparable counter-example of why this article should be kept, as he copied my nomination rationale verbatim, substituting that article name in place of this one. Offtopic discussion thread regarding Criticism of Mormonism article moved to Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon and refactored by User:Reswobslc into a Keep. Reswobslc 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate field of study that some scholars in ancient languages work in. I don't doubt that it is an article that may be difficult to maintain NPOV, especially if certain sources are used to the exclusion of others. But a lack of NPOV to me doesn't justify deletion—it more suggests that the article needs working over and further research. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is very informative about the ways in which scriptural texts are studied to verify their authenticity. I find that the author did a good job in trying to keep the article natural and unbiased! But as we all know that can be a very difficult task when writing, because everyone is going to come away with a different thought and take on what the author was trying to portray. When we write something and when we read something, it is hard to keep our own biases out of what we write and read. The person who is complaining about the article thought it came off as biased towards proving Mormonism. I read the article and thought that they made a valiant attempt at staying natural as well as educating me on different writing styles and the history of many different languages! I came away with more knowledge about language itself, then I did about Mormonism! Jones1987 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is one of interest to many people on all sides of the argument. If it isn't balanced enough, add appropriate citations that adequately portray all points-of-view. Bochica 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia would quickly shrink to one or two pages if everyone deleted every page where they thought they could detect an NPOV-vio in it. Any NPOV-vios here should be fixed and the article improved, not removed. The title represents a topic that has been the focus of many publications over many decades, that have had a broad spectrum of conclusions on the matter from extreme opinions to one side or the other to balanced academic evaluations. And there is enough material on this topic in particular to give it its own page rather than trying to cover it all in the main pages for Book of Mormon or the LDS Church. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; This article has a lot of information on this topic. If there is a bias, please work to correct it. &mdash; Val42 01:22, 16 September 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.