Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biblical consistencies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical consistencies was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to redirect the article.

Nonsense created to prove a point. RickK 23:08, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

delete, I say possible speedy. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 23:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There are many consistencies in the bible. For example, in Genesis, the earth is created, and later on in Isaiah, the earth is considered to exist. Atheist guerilla tactics? Delete. Wyllium 23:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. No potential to become encyclopedic. Although I can't figure out what point it was trying to prove. (I couldn't resist adding to the article, though, and since I don't really get the point of it, my additions probably have made it even more pointless. So don't forget to check the original version. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This article just appears to be an attempt to fight back at whomever wrote the "Biblical inconsistencies" article. --Idont havaname 02:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And they're doing a poor job of it. Delete. Inky 02:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, its an attempt to point out the pointlessness of having a consistencies article, and why the Alleged Biblical inconsistencies article is valid on its own. CheeseDreams 11:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was actually quite worried that I would have to add a {{delete}} tag to the top myself, but someone has done it for me. CheeseDreams 11:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I could point to Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point, but that would be pointless, since I would also have to point out that I have contributed some pointless material to this article, which would be an example of inconsistency. Except it's actually consistent, because my point is that I'm contributing pointless material whose pointlessness is different from, and hence inconsistent with the pointlessness of the original article. Which means I'm disrupting the article to prove my point. Oh, well. As Alice B. Emerson said, "The continually moving pulp layer assumes greater consistency the nearer it approaches to the dandy roll." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be a lame attempt to counter the atheist arguments of the inconsistencies in the Bible. In fact, it was so stupid I found it rather funny.
• Delete: The "Inconsistencies" article was stupidly funny in its first version. This is more of the same. If someone wanted to write an article on Biblical consistency, it would be very easy to do. Of all the documents produced by multiple hands over a thousand years, how many are as consistent as the Bible? Pretty remarkable. As for the inconsistencies, I think that's POV, since the implication is that if there are any inconsistencies that anyone can imagine (but cutting text out here and there), then somehow the truth of the work has been challenged. It's all a war of words that persuades no one, angers most, and bores the rest. Geogre 02:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Credit for making me laugh, though. Everyking 06:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Or we may compile a list of correctly spelled words in Wikipedia. -- Toytoy 07:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, we will have to start with spelt. CheeseDreams 11:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it seems both spelled and spelt are acceptable. See [1]. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Abstain. This is just another in a long string of frivolous misuses of Wikipedia resources. ---Rednblu | Talk 13:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I think actually could be such an article, but this isn't one and isn't the start of one (and wasn't one before I fooled with it), and the title isn't quite right. The appropriate topic, I think, is whether it is reasonable to say that there is some sort of core, unitary "Judaeo-Christian" belief system, and whether the Bible as a whole is consistent with that system. Judaeo-Christian is redlinked; maybe I haven't found the right article yet or maybe we need one. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A comment, not a vote (though I tend to agree with Geogre): see Judeo-Christian tradition. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I am constantly astonished how difficult it is to find things in Wikipedia. Admittedly I didn't do a serious search. I'll go put in a couple of redirects. I'm tinkering with a page entitled I'm Henery the Eighth, I am and just about every time I type it in, it red-links. I'm trying to figure out just how many redirects that page should have (Henery/Henry, with or without a comma after Eighth, and various possible combinations of capitalization... not even counting the people who might try "I'm Henry VIII I Am"...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I can see the outlines of a real page in Dpbsmith's comments. :) Would those ideas provide a subpage to Judeo-Christian tradition? I think this is what Aranel suggests above. Probably the construction of such a subpage would be forwarded greatly if you could find a published scholar who investigated some version of those ideas! Yes?  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• One could of course have such an article, but this is not it. Delete until such time as someone has time to put together a sensible well-researched article. zoney ♣ talk 23:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If anyone does put together a coherent study of Biblical doublets on WP it would likely be part of the Documentary hypothesis page anyway. Delete. Fire Star 05:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke to make POV point. Jayjg 12:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, although it was mildly amusing. GRider 21:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, a parody. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:19, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
• I like it. Delete. It will live on at Wikipedia:Colorless green bad jokes and other deleted nonsense sleep furiously.-gadfium
• Delete for reasons stated above. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful and redirect to bible. anthony 警告 20:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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