Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacea lui Cristos

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. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacea lui Cristos

Not only is it not in English (creator's summary says it's Romanian,) but it looks like it might be copyvio. Probably doesn't belong here. If there's a Romanian wikipedia, should it be transwikied there? Vary 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• WP:PNT The normal procedure for these is to list them on Pages Needing Translation for two weeks. There, someone who knows the language will either find the copyvio, or translate it. If neither happens, it will come back here at the end of the two weeks. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• speedy keep - I'm retracting the nomination to allow the article to be listed on WP:PNT-- Vary 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Article has bee identified as non-salvagable on WP:PNT (see below). -- Vary | Talk 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't speak Romanian, but from the cognate words it looks like this is a sermon or possibly essay based on passages from the Gospel of John chapter 20. I would be surprised if this turns out to be an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• WP:PNT the creators summary says "This is an article about "the peace of Christ" in the Romanian language" -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have copyvio concerns. It says "By Romeo J. Fulga". But beyond that, it does read like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article: "Care este această pace pe care o oferă Isus? Meditând la aceste scurte cuvinte, trebuie să accentuăm mai mult acest pronume “Mea.”" ==> "What is this peace that Jesus offers? Meditating on these short words, one needs to accentuate more that pronoun 'My'." It's pretty much all like that, only some of it is more florid. I don't think there is anything here worth keeping, and I think we should delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete I've read it, it's not nonsensical, but one's Christmas sermon for his church doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Dunemaire 08:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Romanian? Found this on WP:AFD. Hopefully the nomintator will retract the nomination so we can have our two weeks. Unless, of course, this is a copyvio or something... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like the nominator retracted the nomination. The title looks like "The Passion of Christ", and I think a biblical reference, not a reference to the film. (There are bits in the article that look like chpater:verse citations.) I can't find any obvious copyvio on Google, nor can I find this in the Romanian wikipedia. Hopefully someone who can actually read the article (unlike me) will chime in.  :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The orginial editor of the article had "This is an article about "the peace of Christ" in the Romanian language." in the edit summary. — TheKMan^talk 07:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • I have copyvio concerns. It says "By Romeo J. Fulga". But beyond that, it does read like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article: "Care este această pace pe care o oferă Isus? Meditând la aceste scurte cuvinte, trebuie să accentuăm mai mult acest pronume “Mea.”" ==> "What is this peace that Jesus offers? Meditating on these short words, one needs to accentuate more that pronoun 'My'." It's pretty much all like that, only some of it is more florid. I don't think there is anything here worth keeping, and I think we should delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • About the copyvio concerns, it the author was User:Fulga777, which could be "Romeo J. Fulga". So that might be OK. Still if you can read it, and it's Original Research or just plain garbage then why bother with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segv11 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005
          • You are probably right about non-copyvio. Yes, I can read it (except for a few words; as I say, it is rather florid). I don't know if I'd say "garbage", but it is non-encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I've read it. No salvageable material, can be deleted without remorse.Dunemaire 08:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[end copied text]

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.