Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodicy and the Bible

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 Userfy to User:Vejlefjord/Theodicy and the Bible.. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theodicy and the Bible[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be more of an essay or a series of arguments rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The page was created by its author in order to address perceived issues with several articles, but the appropriate solution would be to discuss changes within those articles rather than this format. Ckatz^chat _spy 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - No reason given why article should be deleted. Article has over 200 inline citations. A quick review of a few show them as legit talking about the exact subject the article is about. Not seeing why this should disappear. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Number of citations is not justification for keeping what appears to be WP:OR. There is a perfectly serviceable wikipedia entry on theodicy. The article itself appears to be a lengthy and rambling mess written more like a lengthy sermon. This also reminds me of what we used to call in high school debate a "spread." Throw out so much stuff it becomes impossible to refute the entire thing due to the sheer quantity of so-called support. -Quartermaster (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. I believe a Bible-focused article could work as a spin-out of Theodicy#The_Bible. I haven't read this in depth, but topics like Crucifixion as God righteousing God is not something philosophers discuss at particular length. I've not even heard the word "righteousing" before. Seriously, this article draws on more theological sources than I'm familiar with, so I believe the topic "Theodicy and the Bible" might be worth covering. The author of this essay should be encouraged to make this comply with Wikipedia standards and make it fit as a proper sub-article of the theodicy article. Vesal (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Quartermaster said (GregJackP (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, but merge worthwhile content into theodicy. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Reasonable article. Not excessively POV. Sourced, and reasonably encyclopedic--not a sermon, perhaps a little too much in the style of an academic paper, and in more detail than our general article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userify. This seems like an interesting reading, but it is not written in an encyclopedic, meant to be informing, way, but rather as an essay. I suggest moving this page's content to a user page and then see how this can be contributed to Theodicy and other articles. Nageh (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (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.