Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Christian Theology/Apocrypha


 * Note on archiving: The module discussed for VfD below was originally at Apocryphal but after closing the discussion and moving the page to Christian Theology/Apocrypha, the vfd tag wasn't removed. For clarity, both these discussions are archived here together.

Apocryphal
Permastub, Jguk 07:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The Wikipedia article is longer than many of our books. Apocryphal also seems like would be (and is?) a suitable chapter of Christian Theology. --अagin·ძaz 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Christian Theology/Apocryphal, as it is already linked from that book. Kellen T 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Stub. -Matt 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Move/merge to Christian Theology book. --Kernigh

Prometheuspan 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC) hey, i agree its christian theology, but, you do know that some christians are gonna think you are putting satanic verses into their wikibook, right? (not like it matters to me.)
 * Keep. First off, the Apocryphae are not main-stream christain thought. Many of the apocryphae are heavily disputed, and affect many different christian sects, but also some jewish sects as well. While there may be some relation to christianity, this material would be ill-served by being put in the christianity wikibook. This book is also not a stub, but it does need to be cleaned up. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue if we think it's ill-served by being put in the christianity wikibook; it's already a part of that book; it's just an improperly named subsection. Kellen T 18:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to Christian Theology. Probably better to call it "Christian Theology/Apocrypha" than "Christian Theology/Apocryphal".  The latter would be like calling Christian Theology "Christian Theological".  Wikibooks is sufficiently messy that the link from Christian Theology does not guarentee that Apocryphal was originally intended to belong there.  However, it is a reasonable supposition, and the page is not doing too well standing as its own book.  It does appear to be written from a Christian perspective rather than the broader perspective Whiteknight (talk) (current) has in mind.  Perhaps a broader book would be a good idea, but the author of such a book would not be losing anything significant by having to start it anew.  --JMRyan T E C 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Theology/Apocrypha
I have moved Apocryphal to this location suggested by JMRyan. However, there does not seem to be consensus about whether to move or delete the module, so I left the vfd tag. --Kernigh 02:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Theology/Apocrypha
Just peaking under the carpet for the dust!!!

I thought some of my closing was open to interpretation but this was "closed" in archive 9 with However, there does not seem to be consensus about whether to move or delete the module, so I left the tag.. Unsatisfactory springs to mind so I am relisting it for a vote we can actually conclude (as far as I can see more will follow). I have no vote -- Herby talk thyme 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - This book hasn't been edited for some time and the links just direct to Wikipedia. Not a useful book. Xania 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not a book, it is a stub of a subsection of a much larger work called Christian Theology, which is not up for a VfD at the moment. As far as being a chapter about the Apocrypha, I think it is a very legitimate topic, particularly within the range of something that ought to be discussed in a book about Christian thought and customs.  That at the moment it is largely pointing to Wikipedia as a sort of psuedo-transclusion is besides the point, and that goes more to WB:WIW to show that you can include other Wikimedia (or GFDL in general) resources to expand a book.  More content like this IMHO should be encouraged in the development of Wikibooks, not discouraged. --Rob Horning 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was no consensus that I see from the discussion but I see the resulting action (moving to the current book) as the logical compromise. --Swift 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. To the person who ends up archiving this: please move the Apocryphal section from archive 9 in the sub-page archive. --Swift 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I remember back when this went up for VfD last time. I still dont see a reason to delete it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)