Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word of God

Word of God

As it stands, this article is very Christian-centric and not particularly notable. It should either be redirected to Religious text or changed to discuss only the Christian sense vis-a-vis the Gospel of John with a clear disambiguation statement at the top guiding readers to the religious text article for more general information on the topic. — DIEGO ^talk 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~with redirect to Religious text~~ My opinion has been swayed. Straight delete. — DIEGO ^talk 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. But where? To me, Bible seems the most appropriate target, since that's what I've most often heard "word of God" used to mean. When Logos is meant, the usual term is just "the Word," without "of God." Deor 18:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Bible is still very Christian-centric, since the sacred texts of other religions are also considered to be the divinely inspired "word of God" (e.g., the Qur'an, vedic Sutras, the Book of Mormon, the Tanakh, the writings of Guru Granth Sahib, etc.). Hence, the request to redirect to Religious text. — DIEGO ^talk 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Somewhere per the nom. - Rjd0060 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly with a redirect to religious text. There are many people, in many religions, who read religious texts and worship according to them who do not believe that they are the literal word of God. The two concepts are not equatable. Such a redirect would marginalize the significance of the "word of God" claim and the complex faith of those who reject the claim. In short, it would be a very POV redirect. I think "word of God" deserves an article of its own, because its significance in today's culture and politics is quite distinct from, albeit related to, the significance of religious texts. Clearly this article needs a NPOV rewrite, but the concept itself is worthy of discussion. Strong keep. - Che Nuevara 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects aren't intended to imply identical meanings - they exist to direct readers to the information they're most likely looking for. The 'word of god', for those who believe in it, is usually derived from a religious text of some kind. Those who don't are unlikely to look under it to begin with. Cosmo0 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the concept of the word of God has meaning outside of the meaning of the texts, and that's what makes the redirect POV. And to say that people who don't believe that scripture is the word of God won't look for an article on the word of God is ridiculous. If that were true, scholarly research on religious movements would be nonexistent. The point is that the information relevant to the phrase "word of God" is not in the article 'religious text'. - Che Nuevara 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and strong oppose to redirect. Whatever you choose, Logos, glossolalia are not so good ideas, and religious text is very bad, as per above. Leave it empty, and maybe someone (User:God even?) will write a good article about the word of god(s) someday.--Victor falk 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Who else but User:God could write this article? ;) — DIEGO ^talk 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this brings up a pretty big question - can User:God write a version of Word of God that even He can't nominate for AfD? _Sorry... --Action Jackson IV 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to be a disambiguation page, but is really just a collection of links to articles that are only indirectly related to the subject, rather than being synonymous with it. Cosmo0 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per above. These terms seem similar enough. meshach 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC) _{fixed malformed vote meshach 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete with no redirect, as a loosely associated grouping of ideas without clear purpose or scope. Ignoring all the peripherals, this violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY in that its only real content on the title subject is a definition. VanTucky ^Talk 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]