Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (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 no consensus. CitiCat ^♫ 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I see no way of editing this article where might approach NPOV. Although it represents a POV I happen to agree with, it's nothing but an extended argument against one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' scriptural redactions, and I'm afraid it's irremediably non-encyclopedic. The appropriate place for this kind of criticism is in articles on Bible translations where these insertions are actually made, such as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- and more briefly and with less advocacy than here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with TCC. This topic is not solely about JW's dogma but is a raging debate among bible translators of all faiths. Many languages have NT translations containing the divine name and the subject is very encyclopedic. Can we make the article NPOV? Absolutley! I'm currently working to remove the polemics from both sides of the JW debate and to bring in many more sourced points of view than just the JW and anti-JW opinions. For instance I have referenced to an Catholic Journal. I believe you just need to give this article time TCC. SV 07:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A raging debate?" No. No it isn't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe no "raging" but search for "Tetragrammaton New Testament" and you'll find tons of pages, some but not all pertain to JW's. SV 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which demonstrates exactly nothing. Most (not "some") of those pages appear to be discussing the NWT either pro or con -- pro side being JW, con side not, which doesn't exactly constitute a debate. At least a few other hits are the very page under discussion or a mirror. In any event, serious debate on Scriptural translation is not conducted online. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming material is added from the source User:SerialVerb mentions, which contradicts the current reading of this article, then I'll be happy that POV concerns are addressed, and as such would suggest keeping the article. JulesH 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that the article SV wants to cite is not the original, but an English translation of it hosted on a Jehovah's Witnesses website. [1] I am not convinced there are a great many reliable sources available for the subject, which must revolve around a JW-related debate perforce since this is the only significant group that favors the addition of the Divine Name to the New Testament. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following the suggestions above. I think the box in the article is POV & out of place, Merge the list of references in the preceding article here. DGG (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern: TCC has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament. see Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament Is TCC using this AfD to push a POV? SV 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I demand you withdraw this unwarranted personal attack. Argue on the merits of the proposal, or not at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV is such a sticky area to discuss. You've nominated two linked pages both of which discuss a non-trinitarian/trinitarian debate. When you nominated the List of Hebrew Versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragramaton you mentioned that it was POV. I think you should retract that argument. SV 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I did nominate two related articles for deletion. If anything, it militates against your personal attacks here, as they represented opposite sides of the argument. Your accusations of bias are entirely unfounded, and I once again demand their retraction.
      • Characterizing an article, and characterizing another editor, are two entirely different acts. If you can't see that, go away. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was only one editor of the article. You should retract your accusations of POV editing first. SV 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 25 August 2007 (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.