Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

POV/forking, article content is covered in several other articles (already have too many LDS movement articles) gdavies 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep Changed opinion to Keep based on discussion with nominator below.
 * --Richard 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominator, please provide list of other articles which cover this content. Also, please explain the charge of POV forking (i.e. from what article is this a POV fork?).  Lastly, I dispute that there are too many LDS articles.  Would you argue that there are too many Catholic articles? --Richard 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Standard Works, Criticism of Mormonism, and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible are the main ones. The article is basically a "Criticism of the Book of Mormon with regard to the KJV" (with only one source and serious POV concerns). This could be considered a POV fork from Criticism of Mormonism, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, or Book of Mormon. Unless we can get a whole lot more sources and bring it into conformance with NPOV, I think it definitely needs to be deleted. gdavies 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I disagree. I've looked at the articles listed above and my general conclusion is that the article nominated for deletion is not a POV fork (i.e. it is not an article created to push a POV that is not included in another article).  The POV (that there are similarities between the Book of Mormon and the KJV) is represented in all relevant articles and this article is a subsidiary article to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon.  Thus, this is not a POV fork.


 * I don't particularly like the naming conventions used in the various titles and I suspect some restructuring of content between articles might be an improvement. However, I don't see these as arguments to delete the article nominated here.  --Richard 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I'm fine if we keep it, I just wasn't sure if sufficient third party sources had written about it to justify its inclusion as a separate article. It's not so much a POV that there are similarities between the BofM and the KJV but what these similarities might mean/how they got there that is a little slippery in my mind... the article seems to exist merely to provide more detailed arguments against the historicity of the BofM based on these similarities... While I think the content could be covered more lucidly and in better conformance with NPOV in the body of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, I wouldn't have a problem with a well-sourced and more detailed article (emphasis on the well-sourced). If sources can't be found for the body of this article, I think that it should be shortened substantially (to avoid the appearance of a usenet discussion with little more than unsourced arguments/counterarguments). gdavies 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - the article certainly needs clean-up, but that's not a reason to delete. Agree with Richard that these articles need to be better co-ordinated as far as content, but this article seems to be an expansion of detail from other articles, rather than a POV fork.  Pastordavid 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I have no problem with keeping it. The problem I see is that it's sort of a side issue that hasn't gotten a lot of attention (only a handful of edits since it split off) and by its nature is difficult to find sources. gdavies 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

if not now, later someone will make an article about the Linguistic Analysis of the two texts (or more specifically, about the first text and its sources in the second text). The subject matter discussed is valid, interesting, documented elsewhere, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, i.m.o.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research, being an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This article is more of a thesis, argument or essay than an encyclopedia article. Anything worth salvaging should be merged into Criticism of Mormonism. Agent 86 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some cleanup, but valid as its own topic, and sufficient non-duplicated information is present.Arakunem 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Merge into Criticism of Mormonism or possibly Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Vassyana 12:58, 1 February 2007 (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.