Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian Christian Stele

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Nestorian Stele. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Christian Stele[edit]

No reliable source calls this object the Assyrian Christian Stele. Instead, all reliable sources I've found refer to it as the Nestorian Stele/Stone/Tablet. The existence of this article is being pushed by one user, Gubernatoria, however the source he/she cites for this title in fact also refers to the object as the "Nestorian Tablet". As such, this article title is original research and should be deleted. No information will be lost, as this is simply a copy of the material already in the Nestorian Stele article. Otebig (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the multiple references in the article are fraudulent, I don't see the problem with the current article. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt persistent nuisance article-per nom, no reliable source calls this object the Assyrian Christian Stele. Sorry Pastor Theo, the references do not match what is claimed. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Why would someone create a duplicate article on the same topic? This is illogical. It is the Nestorian Stele and that's it. --Artene50 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book cited acknowledges the term Nestorian is pejorative and should not be used to describe anything to do with the Assyrian Church of the East. The term Nestorian is pejorative and historically inaccurate. Assyrian Christian Stele is a neutral and historically accurate name for the stone. Reliable contemporary scholarship will be cited when university library re-opens and lecture commitments permit time to research. The other sources cited are all more than 50 years old. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nestorian Stele and continue the discussion on the article talk page about what the article should be called. Content forking is not the way to resolve disputes about article naming, and AfD is not the place to resolve them. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect one to the other. I do not know enough to say which should be kept and which should become a redirect. The correct name for the relevant church is "Assyrian church". Nestorian is ultimately a Greek term for them due to their following the doctrines of a man judged by the Orthodox to be a heretic. My preference is reverse merge i.e. Nestorian Stele to Assyrian Christian Stele. Since the articles are virtually identical, this will in fact consist of converting Nestorian Stele to a redirect. It would be nice if the article could contain a translation of the text of the original. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on redirects. There is, as far as I can tell (and I've just looked through practically every book on this subject in the Indiana University library), not one single source that calls this stone by any other descriptive name than Nestorian. Even the books that say the Assyrians (or, more commonly, "Church of the East") were incorrectly called Nestorians still refer to the stone as "Nestorian". I've looked at books from the early 1900s up to works published in 2008, and there is nothing, nothing, ever using the term "Assyrian church" directly in connection with the stone. To use the term "Assyrian Church" for this stone, even as a redirect, would be a blatant example of original research. As such, this article needs to be deleted, completely. Otebig (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2009 (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.