Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jesus of History

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 ambiguous.

I count 9 clear "delete" votes, 2 "merge and redirect", 5 "redirect w/o merge" and no "keep as is" votes. (And a few comments that were too ambiguous to call.) Since the clear majority does not support the retention of the content, I am going to delete this. Per David's suggestion, I am then going to create it as a redirect to discourage recreation of the forked article. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus of History
An unnecessary duplicate of Historicity of Jesus and/or Cultural and historical background of Jesus written from a Christian perspective, possibly created to further a POV. /s&#618;zl&#230;k &#762;/  04:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) NOTE: VfD page vandalized by 202.176.97.37.- NOTE: VfD page vandalized again  by 202.176.97.34.
 * Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; material is covered NPOV in the above-referenced articles. Antandrus 05:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 05:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Historicity of Jesus which is no poster chil;d for a neutral PoV itself eh... --Wetman 06:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect Delete . Oh my god, what a huge, dificult job it would be to merge these two articles while keeping the result NPOV. But it probably should be done for completeness. DaveTheRed 08:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge and delete is not a generally allowable vote.  You can, however, merge and redirect.  Rossami (talk)
 * Out of curiousity, why is it not allowed to vote to merge the relevant information into a different article, then delete the original article? DaveTheRed 06:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Because that isn't really a deletion. It is a terminology thing, to vote to delete something usually means that you want to rid Wikipedia of the text entirely, under any name. Fire Star
 * It also creates problems for the attribution requirement of GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/January-February 2005 for more.  Rossami (talk)
 * Note, VfD page blanked by three edits by User:Fr.Bryan. Restored now.
 * VfD - let the flame wars begin ;-)) - Please help and discuss rather than wage a flame war. - Fr.Bryan - (A person of nonviolence)
 * The above comment is in response to my edit summary when I put up the VfD notice. For the record, I was joking. /s&#618;zl&#230;k  &#762;/  03:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concurring with Antandrus. Radiant! 13:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't see much material that merits merging.  The article is currently a mess, little more than a set of disconnected notes.  If there is anything that should be salvaged, the authors of this article should be able to work it into other articles (as they should have done in the first place), working with the editors of those articles.  --BM 14:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary article fork. jni 16:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if it weren't POV, removing the VfD notice just ain't cool. Android79 21:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect title, no merge of material. (vote changed by Fire Star 17:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)) redundant, POV, inelegantly titled article. If only so much effort could be turned to the neutral side of Wikipedia. Fire Star 21:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 00:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to historicity of Jesus. -Sean Curtin 01:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to historicity of Jesus.-(saving Fr. Bryan) This work contains a lot of research from the time of Jesus to Constantine. There was much debate among the early Christians. Studying the writings of the early scholars and knowing of their biases can help to see the Jesus of History more clearly. (Note: This comment is by anon 58.8.0.252.)
 * Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 01:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalized a third time by the same anon. /s&#618;zl&#230;k  &#762;/  07:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * More weirdness: User:Fr.Bryan replaced this VfD page with "Too Nasty! I am removing my work The Jesus of History". He also replaced the article text with some other variation of "Too Nasty!". /s&#618;zl&#230;k  &#762;/  08:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am removing my article! (More weirdness?)No more insults please- Fr.Bryan
 * One would hope that our Fr. Bryan would be able to tell the difference between ad hominem attacks and simple debate over the suitability of an article for an encyclopaedia. His POV can certainly be reported, but not as if it were the only one with any validity. To insist otherwise is roundly insulting to the rest of us. Surely Fr. Bryan, nice guy that he is, doesn't want to do that. Fire Star 13:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect. (Restored both article and talk page. Wikipedia is not the project of any single person.) Sebastian 09:43, 2005 Mar 5

Comment "*VfD - let the flame wars begin. For the record, I was joking.  I think your joke caused a lot of problems!


 * Which problems do you see? Please be more specific. But please don't exceed the page length limit, if there are really a lot. Sebastian 11:07, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * Anon user 203.144.143.7, who left the comment SebastianHelm was referring to, also left the same comment on my talk page. When I put this article on VfD, I made the sarcastic comment "Let the flame wars begin." I guess the anon and User:Fr.Bryan took offense at that. If so, I'm sorry. /s&#618;zl&#230;k  &#762;/  13:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.