Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places associated with Jesus


 * 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. Pruning, renaming and/or splitting can take place through the usual methods. The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

List of places associated with Jesus

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. A bare list that serves no purpose. The topic is better served with the numerous articles about Jesus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a minor technicality, but the nominator can not vote in an Afd. Sorry. And it isno longer a bare list. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep

Such a list is helpful to the serious dedicated student. It serves a very good purpose. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is absurd to claim that to have scattered "numerous articles" all over the place is good enough, without having a list of geographically important places for the study of Jesus. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A "serious dedicated student" would be very familiar with placed associated with Jesus. Incidentally, "associated with" is a very vague description and could even be extended to every location where there is a Christian church. I am sure that if I looked there would be an article that covered geography relation to the New Testament. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Associated with mean associated with Jesus during the period covered by the Gospels, not associated with the Christian Church in general. This is a finite body of locations, and a perfectly good subject for an article. If the nom is sure it is duplicated by another article, I ask him to find it. If I looked, ... is an argument that  has as much validity as saying .I think there would be sources if I bothered to look for them, an argument that AL has often rightly criticized.  And even if there were such an article, many, perhaps most, of the places in the NT are not associated with Jesus but with the missionary journals of the apostles. Jesus's geographic range on earth was   very   limited as compared to all of the Christian world, even in the first century.   DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. But this is not how the list is presently structured. It includes Alexandria and Ávila, Spain and Bountiful (Book of Mormon), none of which are mentioned in the gospels. If this is going to include every place that Jesus has appeared to someone, then it will be unwieldy and necessary incomplete, and I will vote delete. On the other hand, if it is renamed to List of places associated with Jesus in the Gospels, then I vote keep. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Keep as notable WP:N list of locations visited by a prominent religious leader known world wide. References however need to be included WP:RS . The article has potential WP:POTENTIAL. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is obviously notable per WP:LISTN. When one starts reviewing sources, one immediately finds items like "This work emphasizes places associated with Jesus or his disciples: Nazareth, Bethlehem, Cana, Magdala, Capernaum, Banyas, Kursi, and others. The list...", "Pilgrims like to (literally) follow in the footsteps of Jesus and visit the places associated with him.", &c. Warden (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The subject of Jesus is notable but the list is not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DGG. The name could be further specified, and there's certainly room to add a good bit more about HOW these places are associated with Jesus, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So is this list of any use to readers? It is a list of places that gives absolutely no context to the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Literally thousands of reliable references. Lack of context in the current list can be fixed by editing. -- 202.124.74.74 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like List of places visited by Jesus in the gospels and purge of anything that does not fit this. Something like this would be useful as a category (or does that exist)?  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - although I see no problem with the list, it needs sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe divide into two lists? Maybe divide into 2 lists: "In the Gospels" and "Elsewhere" - Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is certainly useful as DGG stated. And of course, it does need sourcing, as also stated above. But the whole field of biblical archeology etc. is reigniting now in scholarly circles, (publish or perish I guess) but the location/geography issue is an active scholarly topic now. However, I do agree with StAnselm that not every location "associated" should come in, e.g. Avila is certainly not suitable, and Shingō, Aomori is certainly associated, but should certainly not be included. So some type of rename may be a good idea. History2007 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, as Bearian said, it needs sources. I did not even know this page existed, so I will add sources now. Big ticket items such as Emmaus were missing anyway, so I will add those. It looks like a keep decision anyway given that the Afd started on the 23rd. As for a new title, how about New Testament places associated with Jesus, so it can also refer to the NT not just the gospels. I think at least a "large paragraph" needs to be written for each location, and is easy to do. I should point out the following:


 * Places "visited" by Jesus does not fit as well as "associated" with Jesus, because the NT does not state that Bethabara was visited by Jesus, but that John baptized near there. So associated is the right term.


 * NT should be used instead of the gospels, because Road to Damascus is an associated place, and appears only in the NT, not the gospels.


 * By the time sources and explanations are added, this will no longer be a list. I have started adding sources and should finish in a week or so. Hence New Testament places associated with Jesus should work best.


 * Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The Gospels are Faith-based documents devoid of all historical provenance and articles like this on Wikipedia can noly be written by Roman Catholic Fundamentalists wishing to use Wikipedia as an indirect channel of Christian evangelism. There are Catholic fundamentalist editors on Wikipedia who wish to delete content even found in standard reference books on Christianity. Wikipedia is infected with Roman Catholic fundamentalist editing. Lung salad (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - An encyclopedia is not a Biblical travel guide, and I see little value in an "associated with" list. If his visit to a location is notable to Jesus' biblical narrative, then that should be reflected in prose in the appropriate article. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perfectly legitimate list. Lung Salad's objection that "the Gospels are Faith-based documents devoid of all historical provenance" is utterly irrelevant. A "List of places associated with Sherlock Holmes" would be equally legitimate. Also, why does he assume that only "Catholic Fundamentalists" would desire this. Has he never heard of Protestantism (and Orthodox christianity), or for that matter Ahmadiyya, which has its own places associated with Jesus. There is a legitimate question about what should be in the list, given that Jesus appeared in the Americas, according to Mormons, and England according to William Blake. It could be renamed as suggested above to exclude these, or alternatively these non Biblical locations could have their own section. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw as nominator since the article has been changed substantially. I still believe it is one of the many articles on WP that has limited utility to readers. There is a fixation on creating lists by some editors regardless of how useful they are. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't see how deleting this improves the encyclopaedia. A list of places associated with the subject of the world's biggest religion is hardly obscure, and is certainly informative. Someone could feasibly search for this. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually now that the nominator withdrew the Afd just above, the keep decision is somewhat automatic. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2012 (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.