Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus as Mythical Creation

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus as Mythical Creation

This article replicates Jesus-Myth and functions as a POV fork Paul B 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious objections

This page was created in response to the extended discussion on the old Jesus-Myth page. "Jesus-Myth" is a term commonly used by Christian apologists to refer to the concept that Jesus is a purely mythical creation. Aside from the title of a book, the term is not used by people who reject Jesus's historicity; about the only time one hears it is in a sneering manner from Christians. Discussion on the Talk page indicated general dissatisfaction with the title.

The Jesus-Myth page to a large extent reflected the Christian view of the idea and was mostly a jumbled, unorganized conglomeration of straw-man arguments until last week. After a great deal of often-heated debate, I re-wrote the page and offered it up for comment under my own personal page. A day passed with only a single minor comment, so I took the initiative to create the page.

It's my personal opinion that the RfD was made by a Christian who objects to the coherent presentation of an argument he passionately believes is profoundly heretical. As such, I believe that deleting this page would be a great disservice to Wikipedia.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote and Comment

• It sounds like this is not a POV fork, but rather a combination of a rename and a rewrite. Perhaps the right way to handle it would be to first move the article to the new name, then rewrite it. Before each step, there should be a consensus in support. Alienus 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (with talk discussion first) it is entirely a POV fork, as the content in it and in Jesus-Myth are nearly identical. The appropriate action would be to merge it back (with discussion) and propose a renaming on the talk page. One day on a personal page is not sufficient time to get any kind of organised feedback, and it is very inappropriate to simply replace links to a page with your own version, especially when the original page is protected! Ziggurat 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete as POV fork. KHM03 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. TrumpetPower!, when you're involved in an edit war with another editor, and an administrator locks the article as a result, it is not appropriate to create an almost identicle article (with modifications that you like) under a new title. Could I suggest that you go back to Jesus-Myth and sort out your problems there? AnnH ♫ 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You don't get to move a page by creating a new one on a different location. Especially not a page that's currently locked. Also, the pious ad hominem against Paul Barlow is not terribly encouraging. john k 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "You don't get to move a page by creating a new one on a different location." -- same reasons. And the term "Jesus-mythers" is used by all the people on the internet infidels Biblical Criticism & history forum who believe that Jesus was an entirely mythical creation, so your objections to the title aren't really valid.Starless and bible black 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the proper way to deal with the issues raised by Trumpet is to edit and/or move the article "Jesus Myth". And I agree with my honourable colleague in regard to the bad faith approach towards Paul Barlow. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. as per Ziggurat cmh 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maybe redirect to Jesus-Myth? --Hyphen5 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CrazyInSane 07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Editing disputes are handled with dialog among editors in the article, and if that fails, there's a well-defined, well-used procedure for resolving disputes where there is no editing consensus. Merely because it's a POV fork dealing with Christianity, it doesn't become an exception. (If it does becomes a redirect, please use correct case in the title.) patsw 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete as per KHM03 and Ziggurat. This would have been better as a subpage of TrumpetPower's user page, rather than as a new article. Consider it TrumpetPower's proposal and deal with it accordingly. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly merge, if consensus can be reached.Mance 09:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not helping find consensus. Jesus-myth used to redirect to Jesus-Myth; author's change of Jesus-myth to point here seems potentially deceptive. Vslashg (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, TrumpetPower! has unilaterally changed all redirects and all references in other articles to point to his own version - that's 32 affected articles altogether. I've reverted them. Paul B 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Destroy all POV forks. Content is, by definition, inappropriate for merging, so don't. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:55] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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.