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 and redirect to Gospel#Canonical gospels. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical gospels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:N WP:OR This article is not notable and contains original research. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete per WP:TNT. I cannot believe this was nominated - is this a joke? The subject is so obviously notable. There may well be OR (though I note there are almost 200 footnotes) but that's no reason to bring it here. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK< I see now the edit-warring that happened in April. It looked like then that the nominator was arguing for keeping the article, so I don't know why he has nominated it for deletion. The topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the page, I am changing my vote on this one. The article is substantially the same as when it was first created by the nominator. And it is rather biased, and doesn't stick to the topic. I don't think there is any hope for the article in its present form, so I am voting to delete it and start over. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The edit history of the article is here. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD was not a joke. It was done in good faith. I agreed with John Carter on the talk page that, to turn something into a redirect, simply by fiat, is not the way we do things at Wikipedia. And, yes, even if it is turned into a delete or to something else, it would probably be useful to have some debate. An AFD, would allow broader discussion. Very good points have been made on both sides of the argument re deletion. I will keep an open mind and fully support the consensus position that comes out of the AfD discussion.

True, the subject is obviously notable and there are almost 200 footnotes but the issue of OR had to do with synthesis. Editors must not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTH. The article is based largely upon Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, Trinity Press International, 2000. Since he is the leading scholar in this area and the conclusions are from his book, there is no original research. Others disagree.- Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is Development of the New Testament canon, which is linked as main article from Gospel#Canonical gospels. The topic is obviously notable, and even if none of the content is appropriate the term is still a valid redirect — frankie (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not taking sides here, but WP:SYNTH is usually not a good reason for an AfD. That is why we have cleanups of article content, and the article is appropriately rated Class C for that reason. It might be better to apply tags to the sections of the article most in need of cleanup or temporarily bring that content to the talk page. I don't understand what deletion solves here, unless the content is duplicated elsewhere in a more stable article such as Gospel#Canonical gospels. Ignocrates (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this a WP:CFORK of Development of the New Testament canon? It's hard to tell, given the loss of history because of WP:CPM problems. -- 202.124.73.228 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer It would be most helpful if the edit history of this article could be restored 70.27.25.114 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see the page history is at [1] and it is indeed a WP:CFORK of a number of existing articles. Given the WP:POV and WP:OR issues noted in tags from April, the best option is to delete this, and continue with ordinary editing of existing articles like Gospel, Development of the New Testament canon, and New Testament apocrypha. -- 202.124.74.75 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: I agree with StAnselm that the topic is "certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article". As the gospels are distinctive from other N.T literature WP:CFORK is not an issue. During the edit war in April some of the article was merged into other articles but the "duplicated material" can be easily "de-merged". I also agree that the subject is "obviously notable" and with "almost 200 footnotes" OR is not an issue.Google Books I agree with Ignocrates WP:SYNTH is usually not a good reason for deletion or redirect. There are no "original conclusions" as the content of the article can be found in Martin Hengel's,The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels Sorry, but I have to go with Ignocrates. See below - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I appreciate your comments, you have already voted "delete" by nominating the article for deletion. Is this how you intended to vote all along? Because that looks like Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You can withdraw your nomination, but the discussion won't be eligible for Wikipedia:Speedy keep. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't a participant in the edit wars over this article, but I believe the background is that an editor on the other side of this dispute redirected the article as a means of deleting it without discussion. That was perceived by some other involved editors as an abuse of process. This AfD is an attempt to correct for that apparent abuse of process by seeking wider community involvement and a more thorough discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ignocrates is correct. I carefully checked Wikipedia policy on AfD and learned that an AfD is not "a vote" but rather a way of reaching consensus. My nomination of this article is permitted as I was not trying to win "a vote" but rather end an edit war by opening the discussion to the wider Wikipedia community. Although I now believe that the article should be kept, I intend to keep an open mind as the discussion progresses. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to end an edit war is easy: stop edit warring. As to consensus, we did have a consensus on this article being a redirect. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully checked WP:CON and according to Wikipedia policy "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". Actually, we were far from consensus on any of the issues. The proper way to remove an article is with an AfD. An AfD opens the discussion to the entire Wikipedia community. Note, consensus can never be used to overturn Wikipedia's core policies. Furthermore, consensus is very different than a "vote". Also, why are you editing anonymously rather than using your Wikipedia account? - Ret.Prof (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not all WP:CFORKs are bad by definition. I think the key question is whether Gospel#Canonical gospels merits a WP:SPINOFF to discuss the canonical gospels as a group in more detail than was done in the parent article. If the answer to that question is "yes" then the article should be retained. Content can always be improved by more sources, more NPOV, better writing, etc. The principal issue here seems to be the organization of the content in a hierarchy: Gospels --> Canonical Gospels --> Matthew/Mark/Luke/John individually. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except the "current article" is a redirect. That was the consensus position, and stood for about three months before this AFD. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You scared me with your statement that "the 'current article' is a redirect." I checked and the article was restored by me before the Afd and everything was done strictly according to Wikipedia policy. Now we should work toward a "consensus" which will end the edit warring. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I may not have the facts in quite the right chronological order as far as who did what to whom. Any easy way to solve this problem is to continue to develop the content in Gospel#Canonical gospels. If that section becomes too large, a discussion about a spinoff can always be revisited. Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent suggestion. Then we might eventually get a spin-off article specifically about canonical gospels, unlike the present article, which is just a WP:CFORK of existing articles, and is better WP:DYNAMITED. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and that is the issue. At this point there seems to be consensus that the article is "notable" and "OR" is not a problem. My position that the topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article. I suggest a quick trip to the reference section of your local library. Most references follow the same format as the article. Also reading Martin Hengel's,The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels will be helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present article does have WP:SYNTH and WP:POV issues, and that the topic is much better covered by existing articles like Gospel, Development of the New Testament canon, New Testament apocrypha, and Synoptic Gospels. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always had trouble getting my mind round WP:SYNTH. Could you walk me through your concerns as if you were talking to a a dottering old man (which is not far from the truth). Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TAGSPAM: I have noticed that an Anonymous editor has just spammed the article with many, many tags. This is not appropriate at an AfD. However main difficulty I have, is that although the spam conveys his great unhappiness with the article, it does not give of the particulars of his concerns nor any references to support his position. For example, one tag states the material on the Hebrew Gospel may stray from the topic of the article. Yet virtually all the "reliable sources" on the Canonical Gospels state the contrary. For example Martin Hengel in his work on the Canonical Gospels stresses the importance of the Hebrew Gospel from page 59 - 78. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's fairly obvious that the so-called "Hebrew Gospel" is not one of the 4 canonical gospels. It may have relevance for Development of the New Testament canon and perhaps Synoptic Gospels, but they are different (and already existing) articles. The discussion of the Gospel of Thomas etc. is also clearly off-topic, given the title of this article. I'm also concerned about the WP:SYNTH in the large table, which seems to be sourced largely to primary sources, to the unreliable website www.religioustolerance.org, and to footnotes that are simply bare assertions. The table also makes rather sweeping claims (e.g. regarding the "central theme of the Gospels"). All in all, this article seems to be a WP:POVFORK of existing articles, and I must say I see nothing here that's worth merging. -- 202.124.73.149 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article never says the "Hebrew Gospel" or the "Gospel of Thomas" were "canonical gospels". However, I am beginning to see your point. Your position is that an article on the Canonical Gospels should not talk about how they became "canonical" or how "they came to be written". That would make it a WP:POVFORK. Therefore the article should be deleted. However, the "reliable sources" and "Wikipedia policy" do not support your position. Books written on the Canonical gospels follow the format of the article. For example Martin Hengel's book on the "Canonical gospels" deals with the canonical issues presented by both the Gospel of Thomas (on pages 59-60) and the Hebrew gospel (on pages 68-76). In other words it is not that you are wrong, it is that your position is not supported by reliable sources. Can you find one book on the Canonical gospels that does not deal with the Hebrews gospel or the Gospel of Thomas? - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we already had an article on how the gospels came to be written and became canonical, namely Development of the New Testament canon. Starting another article on that subject was a WP:CFORK, and doing so largely from Martin Hengel's point of view (ignoring all the other points of view) was a WP:POVFORK. -- 202.124.74.70 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we strongly disagree! StAnselm is correct when he says that the topic is "certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article". As the gospels are distinctive from other N.T literature WP:POVFORK is not an issue. During the edit war in April some of the article was merged into other articles but the "duplicated material" can be easily "de-merged". The article is "obviously notable" and with "almost 200 footnotes" to say "it is written only Martin Hengel's point of view ignoring all the other points of view" is more than a little unfair. You clearly have not read his book nor any other book an the Canonical gospels...And what "points of view" are missing???? In any event they can be added if the article is kept. Again if you support your POV with reliable sources you will win me over. I am really trying to keep an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You clearly have not read his book nor any other book an the Canonical gospels". Ret.Prof, that sort of statement is simply not acceptable here on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to re-iterate that I voted delete. Moreover, I would like to point out to the closing administrator that the previous consensus was to redirect, so that if no consensus is established here, that should be the default position. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tone it down a notch. Sorry if I sounded harsh. If he has read the Hengel, then I will accept that - secondly we do not vote, we try to reach consensus. I do disagree with much of what you said but I did agree with your statement "The topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article." It seems that you have changed your mind?? That is OK but please clarify. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is worthy of an article, but this article is unworthy of the topic. StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong and the article should be deleted per my nomination. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that sounded harsh. Please see below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• SYNTHESIS: There now seems to be "consensus" that the the article is "notable" and that "original research" is "not" a problem. The main concern has to do with Synthesis WP:SYNTH. I took the time to read it carefully to see if it provided valid grounds for removal by deletion or a redirect. Editors must not combine combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTH If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. However "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

1. SYNTH is not an advocacy tool: If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.
2. SYNTH is not summary: SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. It's likely that none of the sources summarize exactly the same set of information. But if it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".
3. SYNTH is not a catch-all: If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim.
4. SYNTH is not just any synthesis. Synthesis original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. It is not to be used POV pushing tool. See WP:SYNTHNOT

To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what "new claim" was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim. This has not yet been established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on observation, I believe there is an underlying problem which is more serious, but off-topic for an AfD. I suggest you give the process more time. A consensus will eventually emerge. Ignocrates (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I got your message on my talk page. Now that you mention it "I do see". Sometimes I can be a little dim witted. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nomination: The best way to solve this problem is to continue to develop the content in Gospel#Canonical gospels. If that section becomes too large, a discussion about a spin off can always be revisited. And with that I do believe we have consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the delete and redirect, but the spin-off already exists: it is Development of the New Testament canon. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a direct spin-off, strictly speaking, since it covers the entire canon. One could mention in an article on the canonical gospels how the four gospels came to be arranged together in different traditions. In the Western textual tradition, John precedes Luke and there is only one ascension - at the beginning of Acts. Whereas in the Alexandrian tradition, Luke precedes John and there are two ascensions - at the end of Luke and again at the beginning of Acts. This type of content fits better in Gospel#Canonical gospels or an eventual spin-off as an independent article. Ignocrates (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Gospel#Canonical gospels per WP:TNT. Ignocrates (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore Redirect to Gospel#Canonical gospels per WP:TNT and various other reasons as above. I cannot really believe that this has come back from 6 months ago. This was one of a series of cut and paste articles creating a sort of alternative wiki presenting the theory that the real gospel was a lost Hebrew one preserved in fragments of Jerome, or something, I can't now remember all the hoary details. All I remember is it took a considerable amount of work by several editors to stop these articles proliferating. Wikipedia already has mainstream articles on mainstream topics like this - this was and should be a redirect to the mainstream article. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2011 (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.