Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have claimed to be Jesus (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Even after discounting some weak !votes, no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not seem to be a notable list. 90 percent of the people listed are not sourced, and the nature of this article is purely trivial to me. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Take out the unsourced stuff until it can be substantiated, but it's not at all trivial. Most of these people are on here because not only did they claim to be Jesus, they also had followers who seriously believed such a claim of divinity and were perfectly willing to do whatever the person asked-- drink Kool-Aid, castrate themselves, set up armed camps, start a Taiping Rebellion, etc.  Mandsford 13:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I hate lists but his is a decent merit Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is extremely important to many new religious movements. Sourcing issues are easily fixed. Abyssal (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm clenching my teeth as I say that. Anyone can go around and claim to be Jesus. It's obviously not that hard. What IS hard, however, is to claim you're Jesus and have large groups actually believe and follow you. That takes convincing and since religious movements are notable, if one accomplishes such a thing then I'd say it's worthy of mention. So, even though I'm not 100% convinced this has encyclopedic value . . . I say keep. - Warthog Demon  20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I haven't put religious bias into it, and although I don't believe that anyone will make anything of my username, the "demon" hasn't anything to do with Satan. :P - Warthog Demon  20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that the Warthog Demon isn't Satanic, and that the Undead Warrior probably isn't a zombie, either. Like it or not, in at least some cases this claim, however ridiculous it might be, may be the only claim to fame some individuals have. In cases like that, having an article to merge the significant content about them to would be useful. Wholeheartedly agree that the article needs work, however. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Carter. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is really nice for me to use and great! --Zakawer (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be offense or rude but have you read this guideline about deletion discussions? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course keep the article! It is a list and it is a valid question, the cult leaders on this list DID claim to be Jesus Christ.  This isn't a hard bound book on someone's desk and therefore its not as if the existence of this article is burdensome on anyone, even Wikipedia... Lighten up, this encyclopedia only works because people make it work and add information to this growing center of knowledge.  The simple fact that this page is being contemplated for deletion shows that like google is turning into microsoft, wikipedia is turning into encyclopedia britannica...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.68 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (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.