Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth


 * 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) SST  flyer  17:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In this edit article creator acknowledges citations were cut and pasted without being read. I consider the article to therefore have few valid citations (I am familiar with a few of the sources). Article is also a fork of Nativity of Jesus. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article was created as a spinout of an existing article, as per WP:SPINOUT, and therefore it was created by relocating existing material together with their existing references. It is NOT a content fork, it is a spinout - this topic is a detailed issue in its own right, and the originating Nativity of Jesus article was already over 100,000k long. Also, other Jesus-related articles repeat the same material in detail, so having its own article allows all those other articles which address this topic to simply link to the material in one place.
 * There is no reason at all to ASSUME that the references are inappropriate - a lot of editors have worked long and hard on fine-tuning this material in the original article, including me. Furthermore, if we delete this article and relocate all this material back to whence it came, the ASSUMED problem doesn't disappear. If we are to question the appropriateness of the references here, then we will also need to question the appropriateness of the references once the material is back in the original article as well. That would imply a need to audit the entire encyclopedia again - which is hardly feasible. However, if we are willing to accept the appropriateness of the references once the material is all back in the original article, then there is no reason to question the appropriateness of the references in this spinout article.
 * If any editor has concerns about a particular reference then by all means let's address it, but to simply ASSUME that a number of perfectly valid references have become suddenly inappropriate merely because a daughter article has been spun out, looks a bit like an over-reaction. Wdford (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP:SPINOUT reasoning might apply if only one article were split out. But in this case, it appears that parts of Anno Domini, Chronology of Jesus, and Nativity of Jesus were combined to create the new article. At most, one of these articles could be regarded as the source of the spinout (which should be properly documented as explained at WP:SPINOUT). All other additions should have their citations verified at the time the material is added, because all Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As for "Furthermore, if we delete this article and relocate all this material back to whence it came, the ASSUMED problem doesn't disappear. If we are to question the appropriateness of the references here, then we will also need to question the appropriateness of the references once the material is back in the original article as well." We have never required that sources be reverified when being added back to the same article; otherwise we would have to reverify all the sources every time a vandal blanks a page. By regarding Wikipedia articles as unreliable, we create firewalls between articles, and prevent mistaken citations (and a few outright fabrications) from being copied from article to article, perpetuating the errors. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The "problem" is easily remedied by referring to the prior articles and their edit histories and placing such reference clearly in the edit history of this article. Editors are not required to research each source ab initio when creating articles using such prior articles with their edit histories, and, yes, it was improper not to make sure the prior articles and edit histories were clearly noted, but not "fatal" to another article. Nor can I find any Wikipedia requirement that a new article can only be made into a sub-article of a single original parent article. Leaving only a question as to whether it is an improper fork, for which argument no evidence has been given. Collect (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP:SPINOUT was done originally from Nativity of Jesus, but then I summarized and linked Anno Domini and Chronology of Jesus as well, because they were duplicating the same material almost verbatim. Over time some editors have added their tweaks to one or other article, and I attempted to preserve those tweaks which were valuable so as to not unnecessarily discard valuable material.
 * I take the point re firewalls, but I dispute that these citations are "mistaken" – in the original articles they are all clearly addressing the exact same points. However, if there are specific concerns about any particular citation, please tell me and let’s fix it. Wdford (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep If the creation of this was in effect a Spinout followed by a selective WP:MERGE of content from related articles, neither of those processes require re-verification of citations. If a citation is assumed to remain valid while normal editing goes on around it, and need not be re-validated with each change to the article, neither need it be re-validated when chunks of article text with their accompanying citations are moved or copied from one article to another. As long as the same citation supports the same article text, then all is well. If the article text supported by a citation is rewritten in a way that might change its meaning (not just grammar fixes or the like), the citation should be checked to be sure that it supports the altered wording. But even then, a "cite needed" tag and/or discussion on the talk page is the proper remedy, not article deletion.  DES (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Fix - The topic is obviously notable, so this is clearly a keep. If the cut-and-pasting involved in a merger/spin-off results in broken citations, those broken citations do need to be fixed. However, broken citations are not, on their own, grounds for deletion.  On the issue of double checking the citations to ensure that they actually support what is stated in the article ... It is never wrong to do so... but again the lack of a double check is not grounds for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for finalization :  It seems that there is no support for deleting the article, and that we should indeed keep the article and finish building it up. Can a decision be finalized please, so that we can move forward? Wdford (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a useful article on a controversial subject. I have heard the view that the taxation (census) would have been held after the harvest in a slack season for agriculture.  John's gospel indicates a minimum duration for Jesus' ministry, but we do not really know how long it was.  Luke's gospel appears to give a precise period, but we lack the collateral sources to convert that to a precise date.  The article provides a useful statement of the problem.  Issues over sourcing imply tagging for verification, not deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.