Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historicity of Jesus/

Historicity of Jesus/ was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Cool Hand Luke  04:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(note the slash at the end). Duplicate of the real Historicity of Jesus article, which is constantly protected because of continuous edit warring. RickK 00:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, this is the version that I am editing, as I have been asked to do. It is not simply a duplicate
 * N.b. this is because the other Historicity of Jesus page is constantly protected, and thus cannot be edited itself.
 * (As you may or may not have noticed, I was unable to edit this page for more than 15 minutes before all the edits, previous edits, and previous content were reverted to an ancient version which supported their POV, and thus instigating an ensuing revert war).
 * CheeseDreams 00:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In addition there is a further copy Historicity of Jesus/New version which others (if any) are editing. CheeseDreams 00:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, given the explanation provided by CheeseDreams. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 00:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Have a look at WikiProject Jesus. It will be very interesting to see how much this helps. Andrewa 01:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep used to avoid edit wars, etc. &#8212;Florescentbulb 03:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Historicity of Jesus/temp or something more obviously not a current article. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  03:43, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, but I agree with User:Siroxo, the naming should be clearer to avoid a mistaken VfD listing and, thereby, a bunch of people coming along and swearing profusely about "you people." Geogre 04:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wrong namespace. Keep but Move these to a subpage of Talk:Historicity of Jesus and delete the redirects. Alternative works in progress shouldn't go in the main article space. - RedWordSmith 04:13, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * What redirects?
 * The main article space is protected - it cant be edited, if it could I would do so there
 * CheeseDreams 08:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that these should be renamed to Talk:Historicity of Jesus/temp and the like. Moving the pages like that would create a redirect, which should be deleted since it would not be of interest to casual readers (but would still be accessible in the talk namespace to interested readers and editors). For an example of how subpages in the Talk: namespace work, see Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 1. Note that even though Historicity of Jesus is protected, this page is not (althought as an archive, it shouldn't be edited without a really good reason, anyway). - RedWordSmith 04:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, but I think it's a bad name for a temporary page. SHould be named so it's more obvious that it's temporary. Jeltz 12:28, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename to a more obvious temp name. Jayjg 17:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should be more clearly named to reflect its temporary status. DCEdwards1966 04:17, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Isn't the fact that no-article ends in a / and the fact that this page is linked from no-where enough?
 * Apperently not. Otherwise it wouldn't be here. Would this really have became vfd if it was totally obvious that it wasn't a real article? I personally would have relaized it but I cna't speak for everyone (or perhaps myself in one of my less bright moments) Jeltz 13:22, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)


 * Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.