Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptural reasoning: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
===[[Scriptural reasoning]]===
:{{la|Scriptural reasoning}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Scriptural reasoning|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptural reasoning]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptural reasoning|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 20#{{anchorencode:Scriptural reasoning}}|View log]])</noinclude>
Line 33 ⟶ 39:
:: Point proven. Moving on.... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' the article sucks, but we have at least one book on the subject by a major scholar in Biblical hermeneutics published by a major academic publisher - ''David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006)'' that alone means an article is possible.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - As noted by the creator of this article, sources which are not third party do not count. The book you just described, as noted by the creator, is obviously affiliated with the subject matter, and therefore does not count as a source, or grounds for notability.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<
:* However, as I mentioned above, there are plenty of books findable not by David Ford. In addition, Ford's books are ''real'' books published by academic presses like Oxford University Press, not Lulu-published stuff to be dismissed as sources. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''delete''' No unaffiliated sources provided means no notability.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
**Bullshit. A number of notable scholars start using a term, and stating what they mean by it. They are published in mainstream academic series, which publish only serious scholarship. There is absolutely no reason for us not to record that these people are using the term, and what they define it to mean. All of that can be done neutrally and verifiably. If we don't have any critical assessment, then the article need not give any assessment, it can stick to self description of the methodology. Seriously, anyone arguing otherwise knows nothing about hermeneutics as a discipline. There is absolutely no basis in policy to delete this.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and work on NPOV. this is essentially a pawn in dispute between two groups about which if either of them own the term. This is settled by editing by some neutral people, not by deleting. If after a good effort by unaffiliated editors it is concluded to be impossible to find actual sources, that's another matter--but the present contentious state of the article does not mean we should delete it to save the trouble. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as nominated. [[User:Xdenizen|X MarX the Spot]] ([[User talk:Xdenizen|talk]]) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' A Google News search appears to support the article's merits: [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=vBw&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22scriptural+reasoning%22]. This type of article would benefit from a rewrite. [[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]] ([[User talk:Pastor Theo|talk]]) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:EagleFan|EagleFan]] ([[User talk:EagleFan|talk]]) 01:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [http://books.google.com/books?sa=N&hl=en&tab=np&q=%22Scriptural%20reasoning%22 Goggle Books] and above sources and send to [[WP:CLEANUP]] to address POV and COI. Since the article can be corrected to meet standards, it should be. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<span style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<b><sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup></b>]]'' 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''delete''' all original research and no reliable sources the discuss the original research as stitched into this article? Clear delete.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''delete''' Original research with no sources. --[[User:Sloane|Sloane]] ([[User talk:Sloane|talk]]) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom's and Ironholds' well-reasoned analysis of the available non-sources. [[User:Doctorfluffy|Doctorfluffy]] <small>([[User talk:Doctorfluffy|robe and wizard hat]])</small> 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', synthesis of poor sources at best. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||