Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. First, if any portion of this information were to be kept, it belongs in Reconciliation (theology), as others have noted. While a Merge & Redirect result here would normally be a plausible decision, the substantive concerns about this being a likely copyright violation mean that we should not keep this visible on Wikipedia. I am willing to email a copy of this article to anyone who would like to use it as a basis to improve the other article (but not userfy it). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5[edit]
- Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay full of original research and synthesis. Unencyclopedic. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a religious essay, not an encyclopedia article. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is highly notable as there are entire books written about this such as The Social Significance of Reconciliation in Paul's Theology and Second Corinthians, a letter about reconciliation. The main article Second Epistle to the Corinthians says nothing about reconciliation and so this theme is currently neglected in our coverage. Warden (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this is an essay that advances the author's personal opinions, not an encyclopedia article. It is full of original research and novel sythesis. Reyk YO! 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know? What sources have you looked at? Have you even looked to see what sources say on this subject at all? Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't badger me about not reading the sources when you clearly haven't even read my !vote. Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I can't recognize an essay that advances the author's point of view from the tone and the way it addresses the reader as "we"? When an article is so bad that none of its content is usable, then it is right to delete it. If it's possible to write a credible article on the subject, it's be easier to do that if the clutter has been removed. Reyk YO! 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I and anyone else reading this most definitely did read what you write. What I and those others clearly see see is that you failed to explain the basis for your opinion the first time around, and when you were asked to explain you instead avoid answering direct questions as to what sources on the subject you consulted to determine that these were nothing more than an author's personal opinions, rather than established scholarly viewpoints that happen to be written in the first person by a writer who has never written for Wikipedia before and who doesn't understand a matter of writing style. This avoidance of yours, coupled with the distraction fallacies that you've attempted to insert, usually means when it happens that the person opining didn't consult any sources at all, and hasn't put in any effort whatsoever to consult scholarship on the matter before weighing in with an opinion based merely upon what an article happens to look like. Such opinion without research is worthless, and a hindrance to AFD. I suggest that if you want to defend your opinion you answer the questions that I put to you. You, as a Wikipedia editor, should not be avoiding responding to the "What are your sources?" question, one of the most basic questions that we ask in this project. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did answer your question. You asked me how I can tell the article is nothing but an essay full of original research without looking at other sources; I answered that I don't need to do extra research to comment on the state of the article as it is. I am well able to tell the difference between citing sources to simply report what's been said, and citing sources to bolster an argument being presented by the writer, and this article is blatantly full of the latter. Don't like that? Tough. I'm entitled to challenge material I consider poorly cited and factually dubious. The current content, IMO, is so unsuitable that none of it would form part of an encyclopedic article on the subject and so it should be removed- that is the entirety of my !vote. Hell, you yourself suspect the whole thing's a copyvio (and therefore unusable) and I think you're probably right about that. So if all the content should go, your objection boils down to asking me if I've checked whether or not a totally new article on this subject can be written from scratch. I simply don't see that as relevant. Reyk YO! 09:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I and anyone else reading this most definitely did read what you write. What I and those others clearly see see is that you failed to explain the basis for your opinion the first time around, and when you were asked to explain you instead avoid answering direct questions as to what sources on the subject you consulted to determine that these were nothing more than an author's personal opinions, rather than established scholarly viewpoints that happen to be written in the first person by a writer who has never written for Wikipedia before and who doesn't understand a matter of writing style. This avoidance of yours, coupled with the distraction fallacies that you've attempted to insert, usually means when it happens that the person opining didn't consult any sources at all, and hasn't put in any effort whatsoever to consult scholarship on the matter before weighing in with an opinion based merely upon what an article happens to look like. Such opinion without research is worthless, and a hindrance to AFD. I suggest that if you want to defend your opinion you answer the questions that I put to you. You, as a Wikipedia editor, should not be avoiding responding to the "What are your sources?" question, one of the most basic questions that we ask in this project. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't badger me about not reading the sources when you clearly haven't even read my !vote. Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I can't recognize an essay that advances the author's point of view from the tone and the way it addresses the reader as "we"? When an article is so bad that none of its content is usable, then it is right to delete it. If it's possible to write a credible article on the subject, it's be easier to do that if the clutter has been removed. Reyk YO! 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know? What sources have you looked at? Have you even looked to see what sources say on this subject at all? Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify- The book Warden mentions lends credence to the idea that this is a notable topic. The article as written is unacceptable, however, because of the amount of synthesis. LadyofShalott 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete This is an a personal work, plain and simple. Whether or not the topic is suitable for an article I am not sure, but this material is clearly not suitable here. This may very well be a topic that could have a good article, but the idea that it is better to keep an unacceptable essay until then is absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge selectively with Reconciliation (theology), which is currently quite a short article, but concerned with the same scriptural passage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My immediate thought was the same as Peterkingiron's. Reconciliation (theology) is the obviously correct place to discuss the subject of reconciliation in an encyclopaedia, and creating a new article with this title was completely unnecessary on the part of this article's author. However, I am troubled by text that addresses the reader in the first person from the first person, and that talks of things "in this chapter". I haven't done a full plagiarism check, but this sets off alarm bells for me, kindling the suspicion that Patrick Talbot (talk · contribs) is not writing original prose but is stealing someone else's writing wholesale from a book. That sort of content must not be merged. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup and then merge per the above discussion - the content meets notability requirements and some of it would make a good addition to the short article on reconciliation. However, much of the prose is not encyclopedic and possibly dubious, and should be deleted or reformatted thoroughly before merging into other article(s). Noir (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic passes WP:N and the statements within can be verified by reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per User:Reyk - plainly an essay, and as Uncle G points out, the word "chapter" suggests it's from a longer work. As such it's either OR or synthesis. Just too heavy to consider merging - the Reconciliation (theology) and the 2 Corinthians articles are both considerably shorter. This just isn't encyclopedic. asnac (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice for re-creating it with proper content. This shows very strong signs of being a copyvio (even including “curly quotes”, which require a lot of effort to manually type in, but very little effort to copy and paste from a website or a Word document), and is clearly an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The topic may be notable, but if 100% of the content is inappropriate then the article should be deleted. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:42, 12 April 2012 (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.