Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a very narrow offshoot of Comma Johanneum, and appears to advocate a certain viewpoint in a theological argument as well as being overly narrow in scope. In other words, it is a treatise, not an encyclopedic article. I think it is beyond repair. There may be parts of it that could be moved into the Comma article, but that's beyond my understanding of the article. Contested PROD, which had three additional prod-2 tags applied, but it is obvious that this deletion would be controversial and should be subjected to a formal AfD instead. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV/OR. I think the author is arguing for an early date for the Comma, on the basis of its grammatical consistency with the preceding verse, but I also think this is way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR Personal Essay. Wikipedia is not your private webhost. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and for advocating a point of view, per above.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested to the primary author that a brief summary of this article is put into the Comma Johanneum article under a heading of "Grammatical Issues" and that this article is then deleted as an implausible search string. He was reluctant to do so and I haven't had time to get my head around the argument to do it myself. I still think that this is the best way forward. I know that "merge and delete" is considered bad form on Wikipedia as the edit history is lost - however, in this case the article title is so unlikely that I don't think that a redirect is appropriate. If the issue is not important enough to take into the Comma Johanneum article, then my !vote is delete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (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.