The result was delete. Nja 247 08:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination per decision to relist at DRV. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
If you want to know where to take the article, try to find more sources. The place to take the article is where sources have already gone. The article cites several. If you actually look, you'll find yet more. You'll find Lewis Sperry Chafer, for example, whose Systematic Theology (ISBN 9780825423406) covers the same ground as this article, and a fair bit more besides, in chapter 14 ("The Attributes of God") which covers personality, simplicity, unity, infinity, eternity, immutability, immensity, and sovreignty, all as part of the biblical definition of God (chapters 13 and 14 explicitly being under a heading of "Biblical Theology").
Claims that this is original research are not based upon looking even at the sources in the article, let alone at what sources exist. Theologians have studied this, and have studied it specifically, and directly, as the subject of how the Bible defines God, and what it defines God as. Chafer is one such theologian. There are others. Indeed, the first 400 years of Christianity's existence was replete with them, according to David M. Knight and Matthew Eddy (ISBN 9780192805843 pp. 333). Further evidence that such theology exists is the fact of theologians such as Emil Brunner criticising it, as he does in Dogmatics I, for being "unsatisfactory", albeit "not so dangerous as the speculative method". Uncle G ( talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I transfered it to http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Article_Heaven/Biblical_definition_of_God for posterity. Cheers! <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikademia ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I think comments about the present state of the article (in particular, WP:OR) should be disregarded because the sole purpose of AfD is to determine whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. In other words, it doesn't matter if the existing content is OR or not (and for the record, my position is that it isn't). What matters is whether appropriate content could be written.
Disregarding several earlier comments therefore, I think a certain amount of useful discussion remains, but two questions are being conflated here.
The first question is whether well-sourced, encyclopaedic content could be written about the Biblical definition of God, to which my answer would be "absolutely" (and with all due respect to the ingenious arguments from previous editors, I feel that Uncle G is incontrovertibly in the right about this and the opposing position is not tenable).
The second question, though, is whether the well-sourced, encyclopaedic content should be in a separate article with this title, and my position is that it should not. I mentioned in the DRV how many articles could contain this information (and there are a lot), and I feel that further fragmentation of Wikipedia's content on the Biblical God risks creating more confusion among encyclopaedia users than it resolves.
So on balance, I feel that this content belongs in God in Abrahamic religions. I would not object to it being in Conceptions of God, or another similar alternative, if this is felt preferable.
If Uncle G is opposed to this suggestion, which I have now made several times, I do not understand on what grounds.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply