Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

This article should be deleted ASAP for many reasons: 1) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Criticism of Christianity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Bible#Reason]. 2) It creates confusion with the topic of Biblical criticism which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 3) this topic is just trolling. 4) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Science and the Bible. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Bible errata; Biblical inerrancy; Anti-Judaism; History of the English Bible; Christian views of women; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Rachack 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IZAK 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IZAK. KHM03 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- based on the above commetns, this would appear to be an exegitical page drawing togetehr all the varied evidnece under one head, and under a title by which the average searcher might well look. -- Simon Cursitor 12:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Simon: If you read the article you'll see that there's nothing "exegetical" about it at all. It's just an obviously very amateur non-scholarly hodge-podge of POV mud-slinging tangents and rants by someone with an "axe to grind" against the Bible. Almost "Luddite" in it's anti-Biblical focus. No-one would accept such an article if it were written about the medical field -- such as Criticism of the medical profession or Criticism of doctors -- based on medical malpractice cases and damages awarded (which would actually be more of a case against the medical profession than this article pathetically tries to do against belief in, and the veracity of, the Bible.) Go on read the article... IZAK 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per IZAK. The article is an original research rant having no place in an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While I haven't got time right now to read through the whole article for POV or OR weaknesses (which doubtless exist), the topic of the page as such makes sense to me, and I can't follow the criticism expressed in the nomination about its duplicating or forking other articles. This doesn't seem to be a POV fork, but rather a legitimate attempt at factoring out an aspect from a larger topic, and then linking to a set of other main articles, which all seems perfectly reasonable. The problem about confusion with Biblical criticism can be solved by a simple dab remark. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dear Lukas, Why don't you read the article carefully and then vote? It meanders all over the place and often confuses itself with Biblical criticism while trying desperately to make an issue out of Bible attacking. Yoninah 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete for many of the same reasons of Lukas, except if you actually read the article, it is irredeemable as is. No WP:CITE leaves the obvious impression of OR. And the POV is horrendous. -Jcbarr 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, OR, and No citations Avi 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete really ridiculous Kempler video 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and rambling argument which at times seems to vie with Biblical criticism for who gets to throw the most mud at the Bible. Yoninah 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IZAK. Str1977 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: a hodgepodge that appears to have been brought together for polemical reasons. If there is material here that is not covered elsewhere, that probably should be saved, but the organizing principle (material unrelated except for what it is against) is not an appropriate organizing principle for an article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IZAK. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Likely search string so don't delete, but Speedy redirect to Criticism of Christianity and if there is anything salvageable which doesn't duplicate stuff already there, transfer it. SP-KP 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Avi Yid613 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to either Criticism of Christianity or Biblical criticism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Doc ^ask? 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Biblical criticism Kuratowski's Ghost 21:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Biblical criticism. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AnnH ^(talk) 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Biblical criticism. Basically a personal essay. Nominator's argument is convincing. Jkelly 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IZAK. Rachel1 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Biblical criticism, doesn't matter to me as long as the current article goes. DLand 07:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-salvageable. — Hillel 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per IZAK. Latinus 08:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for further review - AFD is not the right medium to fight content disputes; it's not clear from initial inspection of the articles, claimed "correct" articles to be kept, comments, or the AFDs where neutrality is here. Leave it alone and solve with another mechanism, unless POV clarifies somehow. Georgewilliamherbert 08:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per George. Arbustoo 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Per nom. --Turkmen 09:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Biblical criticism. --Shuki 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete hopeless mess Klonimus 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per all the points above. --Leifern 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Since previous attempts at re-directs haven't worked, Delete this POV original research article fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gilgamesh he 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per Jcbarr. Shmuel 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per above arguments; plus for over a century the word used for those questioning the Bible, was Bible critics which is similiar to Biblical criticism Issac 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Evolver of Borg 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biblical_criticism/ Biblical criticisms list. Since this article is basically a summary of existing articles, I think it would be helpful instead to redirect to a list of all the topics under this general category.
• Keep it appears to be encyclopedic, just because it may be POV is no reason to delete it; if you think it is POV (I'm not sure it is), edit it don't censor it. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Criticism of Christianity. Sandro67 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per George. Its a more focused look at the Bible itself, than the more general criticism of Christianity which involves the historical actors. This deals with the text alone, in a critical manner. Giovanni33 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Giovanni and George. BelindaGong 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IZAK. Shlomke 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)shlomke

: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.