Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP

• Strong Keep and cleanup - This article contains (some) information that's not covered in Books of the Bible, and I think this article would benefit from an expert on the subject copyediting it and adding references. Furthermore, I think unilaterally changing the page to a redirect despite the no concensus from the AfD is rather bad form. --Daniel Olsen 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, make what judgments you will on my redirect, but the point still stands: This article is not verified and thus should be deleted. Besides, if you read the closer's notes, it was recognized that there was little to no consensus to keep this article in its current form. With the creator no longer editing here I figured this would be a very non-controversial redirect and would be an easy fix that would avoid having to take this through another AfD... looks like I was wrong.--Isotope23 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Not sure why it's been accused of being unverifiable (I would assume any Biblical scholar could provide resources to verify it), but it nevertheless looks like a duplication of what already appears in
  e@ 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I didn't call it unverifiable... I called it unverified. I guess that begs the question, how long do we leave an article sitting unverified with the idea that some person may someday come along and verify it? Personally, I have a very low threshold for allowing unverified material to sit in articles unchecked; that is they type of thing that tends to get Wikipedia into trouble. Some of it could be verified by copying over the references from
  Books of the Bible if (and only if) it gets sourced.--Isotope23 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, right finally a list that doesn't look like original research and that actually does provide some information besides being a list of things. Of course, it does need some cleanup and some sources need to be added. -- Koffieyahoo 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this is useful information. It shouldn't take too long to come up with references, and it would be prefereable for someone to add references rather than deleting it. Much of it does overlap
  Books of the Bible, but each has information that the other one doesn't have. Perhaps they could be merged. Afalbrig 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and possibly Merge
  Books of the Bible with this (into a section perhaps). The format and sources need to be cleaned up, but this is a strong keep. Useful information, not readily found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and fairly complete. I do agree with Isotope23 that the column on Restorationism---which should include historical groups---is rather incomplete. Bruce 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep unsourced != unsourceable. -
  talk/email 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk/email 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]