Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus (archangel)


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus (archangel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Jesus (archangel)" lacks notability. The only source listed on the page is a single book by one Richard Carrier, and I was unable to find any further sources. Additionally I believe this falls under "Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources" from the page on "WP:V". Additionally, it may produce the illusion that the fringe Christ myth theory is more widely accepted than it is.2601:1C0:CD01:74EE:A8AD:D914:CC5B:3DA4 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC) ansh 666 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. No opinion on the merits. ansh 666 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The book is peer reviewed and published by an academic publisher.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFRINGE. Richard Carrier is one of the best known proponents of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist. AFAICT this article represents part of his views on the subject, as a possible explanation of where the idea of Jesus came from if Jesus was not a real historical person. The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and has very, very little support in mainstream academic scholarship on the subject, so our policies and guidelines concerning fringe theories apply. Fringe theories (or aspects of them) only deserve independent articles they have been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers (WP:NFRINGE). That is certainly going to require more sources than just Richard Carrier. Furthermore, per WP:UNDUE the article would have to make it clear that it is discussing a fringe theory with little mainstream acceptance, which this one doesn't.  Hut 8.5  20:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the topic is actually mentioned at Christ_myth_theory. Covering it in context like that is better because it's clear the idea is part of a fringe theory.  Hut 8.5  10:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFRINGE. If there were anything to this, the article should have cited additional sources.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely falls into the fringe area because one source is not "extensive coverage". - Pmedema (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There would be an article in this space that would meet notability requirements regarding Christ as angel/Jesus as angel/angel christology/Christos Angelos/Jesus as incarnation of the archangel Michael, xref Christology/Christophany, though I don't believe it's this article in its current form or name - its starting from the wrong end. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFRINGE, one might really say "lunatic fringe", it is sourced to Richard Carrier, who does not hold an academic position, has zero academic credibility and is almost solely known for pushing the extreme fringe idea that Jesus never existed.Smeat75 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every mainstream study which has examined the methods for Jesus historicity has concluded they are fallacious. Jesus historicity is not based on anything.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a non-notable fringe theory. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is similar in scope to the Yahweh article i.e. the accounting of and scholarly analysis of a fairytale. The addition of more mainstream content obviates some of the previous objections. IMO future objections should note why per Cf. Yahweh. - 74.138.110.32 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the additions really help. Most of it is either original research to make Carrier's beliefs look more reasonable/mainstream or background material with little direct relevance to the topic. Carrier's work is still cited for the important conclusions and is presented as mainstream scholarship. I'm sure it is possible to write an encyclopedic article on the topic along the lines suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide above, but it should not be starting from the standpoint of Jesus mythicism.  Hut 8.5  20:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete on common sense grounds. Ifnord (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFRINGE as argued above. StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:41, 12 May 2017 (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.