The result was keep. Despite substantial concerns about essay-like tone, original research and Christian POV, there is a clear consensus that this is an encyclopedic subject and that the article should be kept in the hope of improvement. JohnCD ( talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm sure it's very interesting, but it's an essay with very few reliable sources. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Interestingly, it appears that the person who wrote that encyclopaedia article for Oxford, Ronald G. Musto, is the same rgmusto ( talk · contribs) who wrote this encyclopaedia article. It's saddening to see the different receptions that subject experts get from the professional editors of Oxford University Press and from the editors at Wikipedia. When an article is written to the scholarly standard that one finds in subject-specific encyclopaedias, people, you don't reach for AFD. You try to make the other articles better, to bring Wikipedia up to the standards of other encyclopaedias, and you help the experts to follow our house style. Uncle G ( talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I've read some more of the article, and it's looking like it has a big problem with NPOV. It seems to assume that the ideas of the Christian religion are true. Here's an example from the section Catholic_peace_traditions#Martyrs,
Notice the phrase, "witness to the fact". What follows may be a fact for Christians, but not necessarily for others. This article seems to be written for, and from the point of view of Christians. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Despite substantial concerns about essay-like tone, original research and Christian POV, there is a clear consensus that this is an encyclopedic subject and that the article should be kept in the hope of improvement. JohnCD ( talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm sure it's very interesting, but it's an essay with very few reliable sources. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Interestingly, it appears that the person who wrote that encyclopaedia article for Oxford, Ronald G. Musto, is the same rgmusto ( talk · contribs) who wrote this encyclopaedia article. It's saddening to see the different receptions that subject experts get from the professional editors of Oxford University Press and from the editors at Wikipedia. When an article is written to the scholarly standard that one finds in subject-specific encyclopaedias, people, you don't reach for AFD. You try to make the other articles better, to bring Wikipedia up to the standards of other encyclopaedias, and you help the experts to follow our house style. Uncle G ( talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I've read some more of the article, and it's looking like it has a big problem with NPOV. It seems to assume that the ideas of the Christian religion are true. Here's an example from the section Catholic_peace_traditions#Martyrs,
Notice the phrase, "witness to the fact". What follows may be a fact for Christians, but not necessarily for others. This article seems to be written for, and from the point of view of Christians. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply