Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus biography

Jesus biography 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 DELETE

Umm, with all due respect, and I don't mean to be irreverent, but this should be in a wiki source or wiki bible, etc., It is simply not encyclopedic.--Jondel 09:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This clearly is not NPOV. I really don't see how it could be edited to be so, either.

Remove content and redirect to Jesus --Tomheaton 10:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not encyclopedic and shouldn't be moved anywhere. --G Rutter 12:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a copyvio from http://www.hopenet.org/storjesus/sj1.html. Listed on Copyright problems. RickK 19:11, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, it is not NPOV. Second of all, this article is nothing more than a narrative, cut-and-stitched from the pages of the Bible. It isn't really a factual account, either, but that's a debate not for this place. In any event, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
 * Unsigned vote by User:DeusExMachina
 * Not encyclopedic, either an original essay/narrative or a copyvio. Delete. -- Mike Rosoft 12:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shouldn't be moved anywhere. Mandel 14:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: No one improves on Luke and Matthew and Mark. Secondly, it isn't just biography.  If it were, it would just be an enthusiastic rewording of what we have so beautifully written in the Gospels.  Instead, it has a big pile of "text proof" added on.  Matthew gives all the text proof we need, and adding in stuff on top of that is POV.  Geogre 15:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patent nonsense .. er... I mean, not encyclopedic. --Improv 17:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quite apart from the copyvio, the article name is unsystematic, and the contents are unencyclopedic. So even if copyright clearance is obtained, we still should delete it. Andrewa 23:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andrewa, the name of the article is unnecessarily awkward. Delete. Fire Star 15:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Jesus! ~leif 06:53, 16 Oct 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.