Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male and female relationships What the Bible really says about them. (religious veiwpoint.)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Male and female relationships What the Bible really says about them. (religious veiwpoint.)
Delete. I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but this seems a suitable candidate for deletion - this is a POV essay in the first person, not an encyclopedia article. Colonel Tom 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed the text as a copyright violation; the former contents can be found here. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed. Very nonneutral POV and not encyclopedic. Kerowyn 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is the right tree. :)  I don't know if this is quite a speedy, but it sure is a delete.  I've left polite word on the author's talk page.  I don't want to bite the newbie on this one.  Someone who takes this much time to write an article of this size is someone who can be of benefit to this site. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, Lucky 6.9. Cheers, Colonel Tom 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, POV essay. Gazpacho 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. But I do share Lucky 6.9's view that some thoughtful time went into the article's creation. I'm wondering if there isn't a place for this somewhere in the wikiverse. Ifnord 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete personal essay, far too long, ending with POV stuff on feminism that also doesn't belong in an article with this scope. Maybe some of the stuff could be in WikiBibleCommentary:Relationships or its talk page when that exists. Kusma (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, there is a copyright at the end, as well, text is not GFDL--Ztuni 00:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom dr.alf 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete misogynistic essay.. it's either a copyvio or original research, too. Rhobite 02:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ztuni. - Pure  blade  | ☼ 02:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 02:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing very new here. Just...trying not to bite the newbie...licking chops... Durova 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The copyright notice at the end is amusing: more than twenty years' work went into that article it seems. Flapdragon 06:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there is already an article (Christian views of women) on this topic that is much more readably formatted and not copyrighted. Also, I would question the neutrality of any article title that includes the phrase, "what the Bible really says, as though Wikipedia is the definitive source on that topic. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hopelessly POV, original research, may even be considered an attack page. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - holy crap that's long! And people think my articles are big! LOL.  Sorry I didn't read it.  But the title is bad.  "really" is a hint that its inherently biased.  I just can't see how we can get around that and make it neutral or useful. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the copyright notice at the bottom suggests it's a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Are we sure there is no speedy criterion we could apply here? --80.222.74.5 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete in the first para of this poorly edited POV essay is a personal attack. The third para informs us the target audience is Christians, no one else. This belongs on a Christian POV site, not WP. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment can we speedy because of the copyright notice at end? "Copyright © 1981-2005 David Knoll" KillerChihuahua?!? 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio can be speedied within 48 hours of article creation. Peyna 15:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete everything a Wikipedia article should not have - NPOV, generalisations (just look at the title ffs), copyright violations, its length, aarrgh...everything! **swats with rolled up newspaper** XYaAsehShalomX 15:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the article title could be an example of what Article point of view vs NPOV is trying to propose, the article is far too misogynistic for my tastes.  --Interiot 17:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, relevant info could easily be ultilized a better more expanded article concerning the bible; WP:POV-MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and begone! -max rspct 18:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and banish to hell.Gateman1997 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cheerfully confess I did not read the whole thing.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A sexist, fundamentalist essay (unless it is a parody), and also a copyvio: "Copyright © 1981-2005 David Knoll". Delete as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me just say that I have seldom seen anything so misogynistic in my entire life. I'm proud to be male, but I cannot understand anyone who hates women this much. I propose that if this article is deleted, and the author creates other misogynistic articles, they will be speedy deleted on sight. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete beginning an article with who should NOT read the article is not the way to go. --Bachrach44 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with great haste and extreme prejudice. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Smite this article speedily for all of the above reasons. B.Wind 03:57, 7 December 2005 (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.