Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intertestamental period
- 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, notablity and references made (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Intertestamental period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This badly-written article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Previous AFD for this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Historical Bridge Spanning the Interval of the Old Testament and the New Testament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of documentation out there. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/inter.htm provides a ton. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as obviously notable. "may be deleted' means may be deleted if other people are convinced that no sources can be found, not, must be deleted if it is presently unsourced. The article could probably have been sourced just as easily as taken here. Deletion is the last resort, and Afd should not be used to improve articles. Sourcing should be used to improve articles. Obviously its the primary obligation of the person writing the article, but then of everyone who can help. DGG (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could not have put it better myself. 100% agree. Halfmast (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahaha, me and DGG are teh stalkers! Heh. Neal (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep (and exclamations of astonishment). What on earth is this doing on Afd? Even if sub has not heard of this well-known and important historical period, simply running the title through Google Scholar throws up hundreds of good third-party academic references. Halfmast (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Christians use this term to refer to the period before Christ during which no books of the Bible were written (approximately 400 years). The article is badly in need of improvement, but it's not beyond hope. —BradV 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see, it's a POV issue. Protestants use the term since they don't consider the books written during that time part of the Bible. Catholics don't use the term. But that still doesn't mean deletion is the answer - we have many articles on terms that only one religion or partisan group uses. (e.g. purgatory, immaculate conception) —BradV 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's more than that. It's also a widely-used academic term for the historical period between the old and new testaments.Halfmast (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see, it's a POV issue. Protestants use the term since they don't consider the books written during that time part of the Bible. Catholics don't use the term. But that still doesn't mean deletion is the answer - we have many articles on terms that only one religion or partisan group uses. (e.g. purgatory, immaculate conception) —BradV 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article needs improvement, but commonly used term in Biblical scholarship. Edward321 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As this article stands it is 100 percent original research. Many are familiar with the term but what authority is cited to define the term? absolutely none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of sources can be found for this. This may need a cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted. —BradV 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.