Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance


 * 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. The article is found to be original research, and therefore not suitable for inclusion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a concept in the Bible, written in an essay format about interpretations of that concept's symbolism rather than as a neutral encyclopedia article about it. And the sourcing is only to the Bible verses that are being interpreted, which means that this is original research. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is original research, and considering that there's an existing (and better) article on the subject at Baptism, there's no need for any of this content to be kept. /wiae   /tlk  20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator and Wiae -- this is original research from a single-purpose account.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article entitled "New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance" adds to reader understanding of the concept of New Testament baptism. The existing article on the subject of baptism takes a broad view and involves practices far beyond first century.  Furthermore, despite the statements to the contrary within the article cited to support the assertion, the current article on baptism even regards these practices as early practices as inconsequential (3.4). Finally, the baptism article cites extra-Biblical sources, which clearly lies beyond that stated scope of this alternative examination of the Biblical concept.


 * The argument that this article is simply a retelling of the existing article is without merit, as the "Baptism" article has the following cursory mention of the events described in "New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance":


 * "The liturgy of baptism for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses"


 * Notice the mention of these events are within a different context, and unlike the "New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance," this excerpt from the "Baptism" article offers no support for its conclusions.


 * The definition of encyclopedia includes information "from a particular branch of knowledge" . By the references cited, this analysis of the two symbolic uses of baptism adheres to the hermeneutic principles of contextual analysis, a method of textual analysis favored by many theologians.


 * To call the article a primary source or original research is a misnomer since all of the events discussed occurred in or before the first century and by definition, a primary source is a "source of information that was created at the time under study" ,


 * The author of article chose to compose this article using a scholarly tone and took great pains to remove statement that were unwarranted by the examination of the texts presented. No statements are offered without evidence.  It would not be difficult to add the conclusions of extra-biblical authors, but  that would neither add to the examination or alter the conclusion made obvious by the examination of the examples.


 * Those advocating deletion of this article have pointed to no specifics. Furthermore any criticism of its form or bias could easily be applied to the existing article on baptism.  Tthe author of this article has attempted to address any fair concerns that have been voiced and will continue to address any specific concerns. In the reply above, the author has attempted to address the generalizations leveled at the article in the hope that the article will continue to be allowed  to do what encyclopedias should do: contribute to the body of knowledge and information on the topics it addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3fifthsofaMan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 February 2016‎


 * Delete. As noted above, it's original research citing primary sources. Specifically, the majority of sources cited are the Bible itself; there are no citations to published scholarly analysis to support the positions. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2016 (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.