Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus/Rewrite

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete as fork, per report of nothing to merge. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus/Rewrite

Fork of Jesus. And no, that phrase does not imply that the messiah may not use silverware... Radiant_>|< 22:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. RickK 22:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep More accurate version.RossNixon 02:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't do forks of contentious articles without a really good reason and lotsa talking on the talk page; spoons and knives, I'm not so clear on. humblefool® 03:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 04:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly rename one or other of the articles --ClemMcGann 12:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At one point, when the proposal to change to the CE date notation was being lost, I asked what would happen to other articles, such as Cultural and historical background of Jesus which were been changed. “They will be reverted” (to AD) was the reply. In the light of [[1]] that will not happen. That particular article may well be an excellent account of the history of Judaism from a Jewish perspective, but it hardly merits its title. A similar fate awaits this article. Unfortunate, and regrettable, but let us be realistic.--ClemMcGann 13:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and permit this proposed rewrite run its course. This should not be a subject of a VfD until such time as agreement is requested that this article should replace the current Jesus article. There is nothing, substantiated in the VfD proposal, about the rewrite in progress that indicates that it (the rewrite) is either POV nor a fork. It is, instead, an effort (and from what I've seen of it, in good faith) an in-progress attempt to reconstruct the Jesus article. At worst, in my own (disinterested) POV this VfD is in bad faith, at best it is premature. As it is, it is not an article, it is instead, as is quite clearly stated at the only actual article that used to point directly to it (until the pointer was removed on Jesus), an ongoing effort to rewrite the article in as unobtrusive manner as possible. Let the rewrite proceed as it will, and take up argumentation wrt thereto at such time as a proposal to replace the current argument therewith is proffered. Tomer ^TALK 09:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • <change vote>Merge any useful content with Jesus and delete. Any volunteers to sift through it?</change vote> Tomer ^TALK 00:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why can't the edits take place at the main article? --goethean ॐ 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or in the user space of one of the rewriters? — P Ingerson (talk) 15:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, since Jguk was the originator of this attempted rewrite, for reasons which he never made clear anywhere, except possibly in a comment at Talk:Jesus/Archive_17#Problems_with_this_article, and he claims to have left WP, its primary mover and shaker is not here to argue in favor of its retention. I'm convinced tho by the arguments that the main article should have been edited rather than this rewrite, that it is a POV fork, in light of a number of comments and edits made by Jguk, and that it coulda shoulda been undertaken in his userspace. I am, therefore, modifying my vote accordingly. Tomer ^TALK 00:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be improper to simply move it to Jguk's user space? --goethean ॐ 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be improper for an admin to do so, but since Jguk claims to have abandoned WP, what, really, would be the point in doing so? Tomer ^TALK 05:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, accoring to the article history, 15 editors have worked on it (although I didn't look at the extent of each of their edits). I think that preserving their work for later in an appropriate space is preferrable to deleting it. --goethean ॐ 14:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hence my recommendation to merge any useful information with Jesus prior to deleting the rewrite completely. Are you volunteering? Tomer ^TALK 16:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No. --goethean ॐ 19:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through the article; the only things I found to merge were a few missing links, and a reference to the Trinity in the intro; I don't see any point in keeping the history for that. Ben Standeven 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This rewrite attempt looks close to abandoned.--Tznkai 15:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I was going to nominate this myself, but someone beat me to it...Ben Standeven 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 16:25 (UTC)
• Delete V1^t 4 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.