Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omissions in the Gospel of John (2nd nomination)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 18:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Omissions in the Gospel of John
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm hitting up this list on the grounds of Original research. It seems to me that someone decided to throw together some random things that are not found in the book of John but found in the other three gospels. This is not encyclopedic as presented in depth at WP:LISTCRUFT. The word "omitted" also seems to be incorrect as I don't think John would "omit" certain things out of his gospel but instead was written in a different style from the other gospels. Tavix | Talk  20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article appears to consist entirely of original research.  Some of it may have a place in Synoptic problem or Gospel of John, but not without a complete re-working and citing. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. It's an unreferenced list, and seemingly OR (and not very good OR: the writer claims that John is missing the word "faith," for example, but in fact John, while not using the noun πίστις, uses the corresponding verb πιστεύω repeatedly). The topic logically belongs in Gospel of John, but it seems that the better content has already been merged, and so I think deletion is appropriate now. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This important, though incorrectly titled, topic is adequately covered in Gospel of John. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although merging or renaming as suggested in the prior AfD should still be considered. To call this OR is silly: entire books are written on the topic--just google "the fourth gospel" for a sampling.  Really, it functions more as a list of wikilinks to other articles, which should each themselves have sources.  While particular entries may be inappropriate and merit removal, that's far too broad a brush for the entire article. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, note that this article is a WP:SS breakout of Gospel of John, which undermines the position of the prior two !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure "entire books are written on the topic", but the article doesn't cite any of them. And it doesn't really seem to add anything to the coverage in Gospel of John. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I am not denying the fact of omissions, but entire books have not been written on what this article is about. Yes, there are numerous examples of gnostic literature, and those have been written about. Yes, and none of the gospels tell the same story and they have been compared and that has been written about. But they don't put the burden on John. WP:OR and bad title. --Bejnar (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is sort of like personal opinion. Shii (tock) 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. It's interesting and I think it has potential, but those are not good reasons to keep. There does not seem to have any opinion, contra Shii. It does have OR, bad title per Bejnar. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be a horribel mistake to delete this important information. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- All the article is doing is saying that it has different content from the synoptic gospels. John was the last of the gospels and was very likely written in the knowledge that the other three (or at least one of them) already existed.  This is John, probably the last survivor of the apostles, recording an account of Jesus, specifically what was not included in the others.  Even where he does cover the same ground, he gives differnet details.  I agree with Radagast3.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if corrected, this would still be redundant to Gospel_of_John. Edward321 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 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.