Deletion of Arian controversy

Comment: and improve. rimary Source is not a reason to delete an entire article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Socrates of Constantinople, the most-cited source, wrote 100 years after the fact.  While I agree more modern sources should be integrated into this article, it would be quite ridiculous to argue that SoC was a "primary source" that constitutes OR.  Should be salvaged per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: An article using contemporary chronicles and the like is actually relying on the most reliable sources.  Anything more recent can only be a commentary on those.  A bit of historiography and the odd citation of modern works providing such commentary might be useful, not ''no way'' should we even think of deleting as substantial and well-sourced article as this one.  In the early days of WP, the use of primary sources was deplored, as it is liable to produce  (commonly called unreliable inventions), but WP has moved on a long way from that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)