Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Overwhelming delete, including the creator of the article. Speedied accordingly. khaosworks 01:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Original Gospel of Matthew
POV fork of Authentic Matthew created by a sockpuppet of a problematic editor who keeps trying to insert this material. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete     ( ! | ? | * ) 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Virtually a speedy delete for recreation of deleted material, except that all of the "clean and merge and redirect" votes made that one a keep and clean. Hence, no speedy here.  Therefore, we have to vote.  Please note: no "merge" is possible, since this is a POV fork. Geogre 20:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork, obstruction of Wikipedia policy, and other bad things. DreamGuy 20:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - speedy if poss (disruption?). Whatever folks views on the previous Authentic Matthew VfD, the problems must be sorted out there (and there are attempts) and not spilled over into forks (again). Sockpuppet allegations should be investigated. --Doc (?) 20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * N.b. the creator of the article has 2 prior edits, 4 subsequent edits, one to my talk page, one to their own to comment about me.     ( ! | ? | * ) 20:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per pretty much all of the above, and with a request to speedy the next one this guy does. -Harmil 20:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, disruptive fork. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
 * Delete as per DreamGuy. …Markaci 2005-08-4 T 20:48:45 Z
 * Delete. POV fork. --Carnildo 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not just redirect? You can do that immediately; no need to bring this to VfD, which means the content stays there for more than a week. (Aaah. who cares. I'll just do it myself...) Eugene van der Pijll 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because this means the content is PERMANENTLY removed, and can be speedied whenever it is re-created in future.     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It can already be speedily redirected each time it reappears.
 * About my redirecting while it was on VfD: I believe the instruction not to blank/merge/move is because the VfD notice should remain visible, and it still was. (But if you want the text to remain visible for the next week, I won't stop you.) Eugene van der Pijll 21:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it refers to the article. The notice is dealt with in a seperate paragraph. This is so that people voting at VFD actually know what they are voting about, rather than a blank page with a title.     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and advise arbitration between Ril and the author... because otherwise it seems never to end... Renata3 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the arbitration committee are very much the " can't be bothered please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first" kind.     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

--SorrysorryGhpbermuda 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * emphatic Delete, agree with DreamGuy james gibbon  21:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete MAKE IT GO AWAY!!! :-p I would second the advice that -Ril- and the author head over to arbitration, although I see no indication that arbitration is possible:  -Ril- has a vendetta against the author, so strong, in fact, that his actions are over-the-line disruptive; meanwhile, the author is disruptively insisting on getting this material into WP "by hook or by crook".  There's a good way to work collaboratively, and a myriad of ways to avoid collaboration.  Both of these editors have done an excellent job of demonstrating two of the myriad "destruction" ways.  (In other words, I'm disgusted with both of them, but am in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with -Ril- that this article has got to go.)  Tomer TALK  22:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, why the hell are we still discussing this? And why hasn't "Authentic Matthew" been redirected to Gospel of Matthew? The good parts have been merged, have they not? Actually, this title is a better one than "Authentic Matthew". Screw it, scap 'em both. -R. fiend 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect from recreation. We've been through this before, and the VfD process should be respected. --khaosworks 23:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also not nPOV. Eldereft 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary POV fork. I must say I'm verrrry tempted to hit the cute little delete tab.... GarrettTalk 23:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * a-hmm. Trigger finger all a-itchin' ya? A-yep, only one way to be a-dealin' with that, let me tell ya... -R. fiend 01:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork should be speared. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I really messed up when I wrote this!!! I am very very very very sorry! I did not know what an unnecessary POV fork was. I believe Doc glasgow did the right thing to rid us of Authenic Matthew.
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.