Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture (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 KEEP WP:SNOW, no delete votes and the nom has asked to withdraw. -Doc 19:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture
Article went through an AfD here, which ended on July 9th as a no consensus, but with a recognition that there was some vague agreement on a merge to Books of the Bible. This article completely fails WP:V, so I'm not sure I see the value of merging unsourced information to a sourced article. My inclination is Delete as this is unsourced, though I could live with a redirect to Books of the Bible (and for the sake of full disclosure I did redirect this article adn the redirect was reverted. --Isotope23 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and cleanup - This article contains (some) information that's not covered in Books of the Bible, and I think this article would benefit from an expert on the subject copyediting it and adding references. Furthermore, I think unilaterally changing the page to a redirect despite the no concensus from the AfD is rather bad form. --Daniel Olsen 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, make what judgments you will on my redirect, but the point still stands: This article is not verified and thus should be deleted.  Besides, if you read the closer's notes, it was recognized that there was little to no consensus to keep this article in its current form.  With the creator no longer editing here I figured this would be a very non-controversial redirect and would be an easy fix that would avoid having to take this through another AfD... looks like I was wrong.--Isotope23 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Not sure why it's been accused of being unverifiable (I would assume any Biblical scholar could provide resources to verify it), but it nevertheless looks like a duplication of what already appears in Books of the Bible. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't call it unverifiable... I called it unverified. I guess that begs the question, how long do we leave an article sitting unverified with the idea that some person may someday come along and verify it?  Personally, I have a very low threshold for allowing unverified material to sit in articles unchecked; that is they type of thing that tends to get Wikipedia into trouble.  Some of it could be verified by copying over the references from Books of the Bible, but I don't see the purpose in this as it is redundant.  The concept that Pseudepigrapha is Judeo-Christian scripture would be much harder to verify as, with a couple of exceptions, the Pseudepigrapha listed here is not (to the best of my knowledge) considered scriptural by any currently exisiting church.  The Apocrypha is already at Books of the Bible.  That just leaves the Restorationist column, which is a misnomer because Restorationist is a much wider canopy than the Mormon books listed here.  Not all groups that would be classified as Restortationist accept the books listed here, so it is a not factually correct.  The  "Traditional Author" section could be merged to Books of the Bible if (and only if) it gets sourced.--Isotope23 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, right finally a list that doesn't look like original research and that actually does provide some information besides being a list of things. Of course, it does need some cleanup and some sources need to be added. -- Koffieyahoo 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this is useful information. It shouldn't take too long to come up with references, and it would be prefereable for someone to add references rather than deleting it.  Much of it does overlap Books of the Bible, but each has information that the other one doesn't have.  Perhaps they could be merged. Afalbrig 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly Merge Books of the Bible with this (into a section perhaps). The format and sources need to be cleaned up, but this is a strong keep. Useful information, not readily found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and fairly complete. I do agree with Isotope23 that the column on Restorationism---which should include historical groups---is rather incomplete. Bruce 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unsourced != unsourceable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:52, 17 August 2006 (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.