Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal Biblical Evidence of Jesus' Historicity


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123   17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal Biblical Evidence of Jesus' Historicity
Original research, POV promotion. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hmm, reluctantly because I never like ditching such a large body of work but it is clear OR. The author needs to drop it into his own website and he can then link to it from WP. BlueValour 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I feel bad about it as per BlueValor. In fact, perhaps this article could be preserved in amber as the canonical example of what an WP:OR violation is. --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, a fairly obvious instance too. Jammo (SM247) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but I'm sad about it, it's like deleting someone's master's thesis, feels wrong even though it's obviously against wiki's rules. Someone should make a comment on the author's talk page so he can save it to his home PC. -Markeer 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Good idea; I just have - Author's talk page  BlueValour 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR. &mdash; Khoikhoi  03:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatantly fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow, was this created in one sitting? WP:OR, it's even signed by the author. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Crikey, what a massive original research text dump. Give to the author what belongs to the author; fundamentally non-encyclopedic.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   07:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with all other contributers to this discussion... both on the reason for deletion and also on the feeling sorry about it. --Danielrocks123 07:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. John 11:35 -- GWO
 * Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Coredesat  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 10:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As the outcome of this AfD is probably going to be a consensus to delete the article, I suggest that the admin deleting the article first create a page in the creator's userspace and place the article there (as a courtesy, in case the original creator does not have it saved on his/her computer), as it is a very interesting topic and it seems as if the creator put a considerable amount of effort into it.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 00:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per BlueValour Jesuschex 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, but I also wish the author would find some way to Wikify this and try again but without the OR and the POV. Inter lingua  talk 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, but nice call on the good faith effort to let the originator retrieve his work.--Isotope23 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOR and there are many other articles on the subject of Jesus's historical existence. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary, POV, OR. Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With regret Delete, or perhaps Shorten. This is an intersting piece of work, but it does not (in this form) belong in Wikipedia.  The author should place his examples on an external website, and link it to a short text - possibly the initial few paragraphs.   However, the question of linguistic similarities needs to be dealt with by comparing the Greek text (and written using the Greek alphabet), not English translations.  Peterkingiron 23:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV -- the contrary evidence is ignored. Carlossuarez46 01:17, 21 June 2006 (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.