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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epistles of John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completely redundant article since each individual epistle has it's own article, and there is already a list that includes these works.

• First John
• Second John
• Third John
• Johannine literature ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Johannine literature; it's redundant having 2 articles, even if one is only a list, and it makes more sense to keep the more general topic (all John's writings) and redirect this there. Changing Johannine literature into a summary article wouldn't hurt. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The title of the article seems a reasonably common name and, as there are multiple pages, then a summary page seems useful in directing our readership. Warden (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obviously notable and important. Redundancy argument doesn't apply. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does redundancy not apply? According to WP:Duplicate#Reasons_for_merger when articles Overlap (I.E. There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap) the two should be merged. There is absolutely NOTHING in this article that is not already represented in the other articles. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem can be solved easily with simple trimming and summary page per Warden above. No need for deletion.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a summary page exactly like you're describing... ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Johannine literature, per Colapeninsula. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Johannine literature is a superset of this, including the Gospel according to John and the Book of Revelation. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty has been written on the Johannine epistles as a whole, as opposed to the Johannine literature. StAnselm (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scholarly speaking, the Epistles of John and Johannine literature are two different things. There are many numerous sources, as User:StAnselm has pointed out, that write purely on the epistles. The page is a perfectly acceptable summary page of the three epistles, with more specific details on the individual pages. Ravendrop 00:00, 30 November 2012 (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.