"

 Post-AfD 
Firstly, the second AfD was proposed too soon after the first, particularly when the issue of giving time to allow the article to develop was raised by two of the three voters in the first AfD.
Second, if Philosophy Teacher's renaming of the article fit the content, then his deletion of content that did not fit the new title might have been unnecessary, no? Especially when his reason for the new title was in order to fit the content.
03:45, 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher (talk | contribs) m (4,659 bytes) (moved Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche to Friedrich Nietzsche's view of Søren Kierkegaard: Judging from the way the article is written, this is its actual topic.) 
03:51, 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher (talk | contribs) (3,611 bytes)(deleted points of comparison - out of place, given that the article's actual topic is Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard, to judge from the first paragraph)
This is not the only unhelpful change during the AfDs in my opinion. This is the article at its best and this is the diff between that and the day of writing The major differences are obvious. I call your attention to the farcical replacement of an easily verifiable statement ""Most researchers believe that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) knew little of"" with the tie-me-to-the-mast-and-damn-the-torpedos stance of ""Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) knew little of"", all because of the WP crusade against weasel words. I am reminded by a lesson that I learned from probably the most contentious and biased editor I know on WP...even a stopped clock is right once a day. He said that the lead does not have to have citations. The rest of the article is the verification for it. In the same way, unsupported claims, however weaseloid, can inform the reader quickly and cleanly and be verified elsewhere.
If the article is restored, I recommend moving the comparison of the two philosophers' approach to Christian topics out of the lead to a separate paragraph in the Points of Comparison section.   "