Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Bible

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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Bible

Evil Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable project, the article cites no reliable secondary sources, only the project's own website. Thus, delete as unattributable material. Beit Or 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I pretty much consider myself an atheist, but this subject is utterly non-notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to American Atheists, the sponsoring organization, where ti deserves a mention (and the primary sources rule applies). -- Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, not notable. Also, being an atheist myself, it's always kinda disappointing when my people are really mean :( For some reason, we tend to be that (not really relevant, just thought it needed to be said) Oskar 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the delete idea, but also because the comments between the sources are so blatantly not following the NPOV policy. I added the NPOV template, but still ... I'm going with delete. --Theunicyclegirl 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I am not an atheist, but I think that if endless harping about historical anti-semitism in Islam is permitted on lots of pages, backed with quotations from Qur'an, then I think some other texts from long, long ago should also be permitted, to present another side of Jewish history. Long before Islam existed, yes, but the point is that the God of the "chosen people" also commanded that a great many horrible things be done in His name. An alternative would be to have a page dedicated to "God-ordained atrocities in the Old Testament/Torah." I'm not particularly fond of the American Atheists, but they did a good job in gathering this material. Why hold Islam strictly to the text of long ago when other foundational texts from ancient days are only presented now as lovely, heartwarming, inspirational stories, when really they are filled with evil, vicious incidents, committed by Jews, that are now celebrated as righteous and heroic actions. --Joybucket 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the material is currently unsourced, doesn't mean it can't be sourced. A google serach reveals such a concept is notable [1]. Bless sins 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a textbook example of how not to use google. First of all, you need to use quotes otherwise it pops up any page with the word "evil" and "bible" in them, quite a few I would imagine. And even if you do that, there is no way to know how many sites refer to this thing specifically. "evil" and "bible" are just to generic Oskar 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, kids, try this one or one like it. Atheism is not the main concern; in fact, atheism is irrelevant. The point is that vicious, genocidal acts were commanded or sanctioned by God in many parts of the Old Testament. It is entirely notable, and to focus only on the lollipops, cotton-candy and merry-go-rounds of the Old Testament, while meticulously documenting the pre-PC bias and cruelties of other sacred texts, is intellectually dishonest. --Joybucket 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be misunderstanding what this process is all about. I agree with you that the bible is pretty darn horrible at places. I am also an atheist I have no bias in favour of christianity in any way, shape or form. But the question isn't whether criticism of the bible should be in wikipedia, the question is should this, specifically this, example of bible-critique be included. What sets this critique apart from the thousands of others? Has it been written about in magazine articles? Is it in any other way notable? For general criticism of the ethical conduct of the divine in the old and new testament, see Ethics in the Bible Oskar 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It would seem that both keep votes above are meant as misdirected revenge for grievances on Islam and antisemitism.Proabivouac 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article needs to be improved, but judging by a Google search, the project is both notable and verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per OR and WP:POINT. meshach 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep assuming refs. will be found. In the interim I removed the somewhat intrusive section of biblical quotes on "Rape in the Bible", leaving just the citations. DGG 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The best place to include this into Wikipedia would be as a link in the "External Links" section at the bottom of the American Atheists page. Delete per nom, Proabivouac and Meschach. --ProtectWomen 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Immediately (strikethrough of my own statement per 6SJ7) Delete per nom, Proabivouac, Meschach and MPerel --ProtectWomen 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it is just a web site and apparently not connected with American Atheists. It says right on the front page of evilbible.com, "EvilBible.com is not affiliated with American Atheists." I just edited the article accordingly, figuring that in its last few days it should at least be accurate, although the edit makes even clearer than before that the "organization" in question is not notable and the article should obviously be deleted. 6SJ7 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unattributable and non-notable. ElinorD (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of this article is not moral deficiencies in the Bible, it is a particular website, and that website is not notable. -- Schaefer (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN, per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability Avi 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, and a whois shows it is anonymously registered. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Personal website being used to promote a POV. Zazaban 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, fine, delete. All of you are completely missing the point. The Atheist crap is irrelevant. I'm just going to make a page called Warfare and Violence of Ancient Israel and Judah. --Joybucket 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

very strong delete this was put here to promote an anti bible website and doesn't explain why it is notable even when compared to other anti bible websites. Irate velociraptor 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable site. --FateClub 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn WP:WEB failure lacking in assertion of notability. Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 22 March 2007 (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.