Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Biblical accommodation

We edit-conflicted on closing this. Your closing statement seems to be broken somewhere. I'd have closed this as no consensus with the following rationale: The principal argument for deletion is WP:NPOV, in that it is uncontested that the article reflects the point of view of the Catholic Encyclopedia from which it was copied. NPOV is a core policy, so "keep" arguments that simply ignore it must be given less weight. But NPOV is a problem that can be fixed by editing rather than deletion, and the article has in fact been substantially edited since the nomination, with the apparent aim of making it less POV, so the NPOV argument alone doesn't compel deletion either at this point.  Sandstein  06:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to check whether you two think this should be a merge or a no consensus. I was thinking about tackling the merge this weekend—if indeed that's what we're doing—so wanted to make sure it was the right call. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I genuinely have no skin in this. If Sandtein disagrees he can xo whatever he likes. Otherwise the afd should stand. Nc and merge are functionally tge same as no deletion has taken place. Spartaz Humbug! 23:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)