Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament athletic metaphors


 * 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

New Testament athletic metaphors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article appears to be original research assembled by the editor from various sources, none of which have collected this information independently. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Xtzou ( Talk ) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Radagast3 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nom makes no sense: the article is not original research: it cites 7 different books, as well as relevant primary sources. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure which definition of OR the nom is using here, but these appear to be a series of passages within the primary sources which have received sufficient commentary in secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment im really not sure if this is OR or not. My question would be: is it notable? lots of the refs are from religious publishers, not academic. considering the fairly good size of the new testament (of course, still much smaller than the old), would it be at all surprising that sports metaphors would be used at least sporadically? I would like to see if some of the references actually state that they feel this is a notable phenom. I would also like to see if other religious texts use athletic metaphors, or not. This article may be harmless, but i still think it needs something more to make it right.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that the sheer volume of Christian literature using the metaphor makes it notable. As the article points out, the metaphor is not unique to Christianity, but has its origins in the fact that the relevant sections of the New Testament were written in the same part of the world that gave us the Olympic Games. I would certainly be interested in seeing an article on sports metaphors in other religions.
 * I'm not sure of the distinction between religious and academic publishers which you're trying to make. Some of the references are academic works outside the Christian context, others are books written by academics specialising in New Testament studies. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep'  major rtopic, significant references available. ALL acceptable wp  articles are prepared by assembly information from various sources. To do so is not OR. Quite the contrary, to not do so would mean writing the material based on one's own knowledge, and that is what would be OR.  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep under 2.1. Not only was this nominated while it was in the middle of being created (it is roughly twice the length of when it was nominated), but there is absolutely no cause for this edit - User:Xtzou re-inserted a prod and threatened an AfD. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. As the "find sources" above shows, there are no references in the literature or relevant academic articles on "New Testament athletic metaphors". This article is a collect of statements and phrases that the article's editor is interpreting to be "athletic". Therefore it is original research. (In fact, many of them seem to refer more generally to game strategy or "life" strategy and not specifically to athletics.) And the image used in the article is an Ancient Greek vase showing the Panathenaic Games (566 BC), and the Ancient Greeks were not Christians and had nothing to do with the New Testament. Xtzou ( Talk ) 11:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This !vote from the nom seems to reflect some misunderstandings, and misses the 2920 books found by Google. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per:
 * 1) DGG - major topic, encyclopedic
 * 2) StAnselm - well-sourced, see WP:RS; vexacious, see WP:Speedy
 * 3) Radagast3, Jcelemns, and DGG - it is not under the rubrics of WP:OR as the consensus feels
 * 4) WP:OUTCOMES - commonly we keep such major issues in religion
 * 5) WP:HEY - it has been improved since the nomination. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as others said.David V Houston (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (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.