Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament as political satire


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New Testament as political satire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Was originally nominated for speedy as a hoax, which I declined. Multiple issues. Whole thing is WP:OR, of questionable notability, has no reliable sources and a distinct POV.

The following is a copy of a discussion which took place on the talk page following the speedy nom:

This article is by no means a "blatant and obvious hoax", as falsely alleged by the advocate for its "speedy deletion". All its content is derived from respectable historical sources.


 * None of which are mentioned. I could have gone for speedy deletion as nonsense (e.g. the weird dipthongs, idiosyncratic spellings such as "antient Aiguptos", bizarre claims such as that the acronym of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants is a deliberate commemoration of Vespasianus); or maybe a prod as original research (e.g. "Our thesis is..."); but given your appalling record as an editor, and the fact that I can find no evidence whatsoever to support the claims in this article, and the incoherence of the ideas, and the blatant falsehoods which would be apparent to any schoolchild... well, hoax seems most appropriate! andy (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What the above is calling "idiosyncratic" is actually a combination of a Latinism and a literal standard transliteration from Hellenic. The usual English spellings are defective. On the matter of WASP, one would naturally suspect that whoever invented that acronym intended a Latin allusion; such sort of allusions are common in modern-day high-powered politics.0XQ (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: I've only just noticed the line where Nero gives rise to the Norse word Norn. That's a perfect example of a blatant hoax - it took me 5 seconds to find a WP entry that flatly contradicts it at Norns, and a few moments more to look up the etymology in a dictionary. andy (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Runic script was derived from the Etruscan script; the Caesar dynasty employed Teutonic bodyguards; later Vikings were in pay as mercenaries for the Byzantine empire. The Norse sagas are largely descriptions of events in the Byzantine empire. Given this state of affairs, it is likely that much of the Norse religious vocabulary may derive from allusions to events in the history of the Roman empire.0XQ (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a very silly conversation. For a start the Norse sagas are not "descriptions of events in the Byzantine empire" - see Saga. Are you seriously trying to support this crazy article by adding further untruths? At best, you're admitting that you made up the whole thing by stitching together a mass of speculations, so even on that basis the article fails. But I think it's worse than that - you made it up, you're pretending it's true, and you're trying to mislead readers into believing you by adding further spurious arguments. That's a hoax in my book. andy (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an abundance of "Norse sagas' references to warriors returning from service with the emperor" of the Byzantine empire. (Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, p. 50)0XQ (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) An example is where, according to the HEIMSKRINGLA (the Norse book of kings by Snorri Sturlasson), the brother of a king of Norway "wins a place in the Byzantine Emperor's Varangian Guard." 0XQ (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The author of this page, who is a friend of mine, sent me the link so I could examine it. From what I know about him, this is not a hoax, but a serious allbeit different, way to offer his efforts to improve Wikipedia. This person has the ability and time to really add to Wikipedia in all kinds of esoteric areas of knowledge, and he should be encouraged, instead of being instantly deleted and called a "hoax". I know it is not you job, but some guidance and help and encouragement would go a long way. In other words help and not put him down!! Henry Gurr  16 Jan 2010  8:16 pm Eastern Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrySGurr (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, HenrySGurr, if this isn't a hoax, either of you should add references from reliable, third-party sources - not blogs, forum posts or amateur / self-created websites  - if s/he wishes to prevent deletion. The help pages should be his/her first port of call; I'm sure you'll direct him/her there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nancy talk  09:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The politest thing you can say about this article is that it's original research andy (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The first sentence would be fine except that it writes a cheque that the rest of the article conspicuously fails to cash. If there really are notable "radical literary critics" who have advanced this theory seriously then this article should be about them, their idea, when and how it was put forward and the response it generated (presumably a very angry one from some Christians). That could be an interesting (and possibly quite entertaining) article, provided there were reliable facts to support its content. What it should not be is a long, incoherent polemic seeking to advance the argument itself, which is what it is. Absent any indication of who these "radical literary critics" are, a modern cynic might suggest that this phrase coincides with the article's author and few else. Amusing though the concept is, there is nothing here to provide verifiability for the first sentence and without that the whole thing falls into original research. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a WP:FRINGE theory, at best, which does not meet that guideline's requirements for referencing, sources, or notability. I tried to approach this article with an open mind, despite the author's many previous questionable articles and despite sentences like, "After the pumpkinification of Claudius, his successor Neron (Nero) became, through fatal condemnation to death of his own mother, the source of the name 'Nornir' of the Norse fatal sistren-goddesses."  But there's nothing here that can be saved.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 10:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, this is the most bizarre non-notable, poorly referenced, fringe theory I've seen here yet.  Freakish. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is customary among the Wikhipaedianoi that the creation of any such absurdity as this could only entail the worst of calamities, namely said article being discredited, being repudiated, and being deleted, ever so much as that might stir the indignation of the fabricators who would hoodwink gullible victims into believing such foolish doctrine. EALacey (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I skimmed over this article, it seems brilliant. The satire interpretation needs to be referenced to be an informational article, though.  This interp.  probably should be documented in the Wikipedia, which is a wonderful resource which I use almost daily, BTW.  Thanks for Wikipedia and thank you to the author for such a thoughtful, eye opening contribution, which I would think can be adequately referenced.  The complicated reference paths I guess must be fairly considered, but personally I like to just be able to look up a citation and thats it. I don't want to have to read a dozen books on Norse Mythology and then linguistics and the history of the Byzantine Empire to be able to follow the path of the references.  I would need to just be able to look up the reference and see whatever is quoted or referenced in context and proceed in this way.  Thanks for the article and discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtwd (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)  — Mtwd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: has been blocked as a sockpuppet of, the author of the article under discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: The basis for the deletion nomination isn't whether or not this is a brilliant or eye-opening or delightful new idea but whether it qualifies for inclusion in this encyclopedia. As a brand new, but non-notable, idea, it doesn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can come up with 2-3 RS that clearly make use of this concept. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, quite an interesting idea (although I reject it thoroughly), but there's no way that this can become a valid encyclopedia article. If proper sources are found, this will still need to be rewritten so completely that there's no point in keeping the mess that's here right now.  Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Satire was common in Celtic societies, but I've never associated it with the Biblical period Hebrews. I've never seen Pwyl (sic) ruler of Annwm (sic) associated with Paulos, or Annwn connected with Tartaros. (Spellings should normally be Pwyll and Annwn or Annwfn.) OR or fantasy? Dunno, but it makes most conspiracy theories look rational. Peridon (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The above keep post is written in a style that seems familiar to me from somewhere. Somehow it makes me think of socks, too. Could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another comment - how about setting up a wiki-zoo where such strange beasts as this article could be kept for future generations to marvel at? In its own peculiar way it's as wonderful as the hippogrif. andy (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd sign to back a Wiki-Zoo. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly we would quickly be inundated with would-be primates deliberately auditioning for a place in the monkey house, which rather goes against the spirit of capturing these more exotic examples of genuine oddity. I think this is why Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense was discontinued. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BJAODN lives, although not on wikipedia proper. See www.bjaodn.org. DES (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as per DanielRigal. This appears to be a fringe theory at best, a piece of OR or a hoax at worst. Many of its alleged "facts" are simply incorrect ("radical" does not derive from "radish"; "Claudius" does not mean closure, and was not a new name for the Emperor of that name, but was instead a family name with a history hundreds of years old at that point; "WASP" is not a reference to an early Roman emperor, to name just a few) But the fatal flaw is the failurte to cite any reliable source that has mentioned, let alone advocated, this theory. If this is the article creator's personal theory, let him get it published in some appropriate place. if it is someone else's, cite where it has been published and we can asses its notability. Until one or the other is done, Out! DES (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter drivel. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete At best this is someone's uncited theory and at worst its a hoax. This article's name should probably be added to WP:FREAKY once it's deleted. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: this is close to insanity. It's a biased article, there are no valuable sources, some of it is definitely fringe, it would (as a whole) be considered as fringe by many, has conspiracy theories in there (such as the theory that the Flavians invented Christianity), has obvious nonsense in there (WASP etc.), and also factual errors (e.g. Carotta's theory is one of a Roman origin, but it has nothing to do with satire) etc. The whole thing may be based on Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament, where on page 1180 Price mixes several Roman origin theories and (falsely) states without further elaboration that all these theories purport that Christianity is "ironic residue of Roman propaganda". In any case, there is also an article on Bible conspiracy theories, and if at all, parts of it can be added there. The Jesus Messiah article, which was all about the Flavian conspiracy to invent Jesus & Christianity as a political satire, has been deleted before. —85.178.82.121 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —  85.178.82.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC) [Note: not a single-purpose account; simply a WP editor without an account.] —85.178.65.175 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: At first I thought it was just WP:FRINGE but after reviewing the author's edits and linking of this article, it appears more like an attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unsubstantiated; some sources are given, but none are authoritative, and some do not even support the information they are cited under. Might be a hoax (a parody about a parody?) or might be an original essay, but either way does not belong in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Delete -- If we were going to have an article on this, we would need there to be a series of good academic WP:RS. As it is, it is little better than a WP:OR essay.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 24 January 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.