- 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads more like a collection of sermons than an encyclopedia article. Seems to just be a random collection of passages about God/religion -- there's no contiguous subject being covered. The contents of the article are fairly controversial -- for example, it contests the theory of the Big Bang. Highly subjective, written from a first-person perspective with no semblence of a neutral point of view. IagoQnsi ( talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory (scientific) is only explained in the article. It does not contests the theory but is used to explain a point. Without the article being written in its complete form, it is not right to subject it for deletion. Rosario Fernandes ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the title tag in the above comment to bold text -- the title was causing weird things to happen on the deletion log page. Anyway, I only mentioned the big bang content as an example of non-neutral content in the page. The issues with neutrality extend to the entirety of the page, not just that section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and must contain only content that is verifiable by secondary sources. Opinionated primary-source-like content is not acceptable; see Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for more info. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete per WP:CSD#A10: duplicates the topic of God. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A bunch of material that is already covered in articles like Big Bang, God, Book of Exodus and the like. The content in this article can't stand on its own. /wiae /tlk 18:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- We might have an article with this title, with a much more limited scope covering the theology of specific topic, but what we have here is an ESSAY, not an encyclopedia article. It requires TNT and starting again. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Peterkingiron. SJK ( talk) 11:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads more like a collection of sermons than an encyclopedia article. Seems to just be a random collection of passages about God/religion -- there's no contiguous subject being covered. The contents of the article are fairly controversial -- for example, it contests the theory of the Big Bang. Highly subjective, written from a first-person perspective with no semblence of a neutral point of view. IagoQnsi ( talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory (scientific) is only explained in the article. It does not contests the theory but is used to explain a point. Without the article being written in its complete form, it is not right to subject it for deletion. Rosario Fernandes ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the title tag in the above comment to bold text -- the title was causing weird things to happen on the deletion log page. Anyway, I only mentioned the big bang content as an example of non-neutral content in the page. The issues with neutrality extend to the entirety of the page, not just that section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and must contain only content that is verifiable by secondary sources. Opinionated primary-source-like content is not acceptable; see Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for more info. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete per WP:CSD#A10: duplicates the topic of God. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A bunch of material that is already covered in articles like Big Bang, God, Book of Exodus and the like. The content in this article can't stand on its own. /wiae /tlk 18:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- We might have an article with this title, with a much more limited scope covering the theology of specific topic, but what we have here is an ESSAY, not an encyclopedia article. It requires TNT and starting again. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Peterkingiron. SJK ( talk) 11:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.