Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omissions in the Gospel of John

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The result was Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator) - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions in the Gospel of John[edit]

Per WP:NOT#INFO. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. The definition given by the article for an "omission" is apparently if it's in Matthew, Mark or Luke, it has been "omitted" from John. "Omitted" implies that the writers of the Gospel of John were either negligent, or deliberately planned to leave out something. But semantics aside, what's the point of the article? This strikes me as "original synthesis", drawing one's own conclusions from the Bible. Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is absolutely terrible and needs a lot of work, this is actually a notable topic and has received plenty of study over the years. (See Synoptic problem for more information). The article should be moved to a less ambiguous title, perhaps Comparison of the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels, and needs to be sourced to get rid of any OR or POV, but the topic is notable and most of the information in it is verifiable. BradV 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Synoptic problem. I think having this as a separate article make finding it more difficult. I think there is already a "similarities" section. A "differences" might fit in very well in that article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gospel of John into a section on "controversies" or "additional material" or "questionable exclustions"--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gospel of John. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely. The points are all valid and important. Perhaps the Title could be changed to "Differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics." Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to withdraw this nomination and work on merging the article. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:03, 7 July 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.