Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete. – ABCD 20:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Tetragrammaton in the Bible

This article presents original research attempting to rebut a claim made by the Jewish encyclopedia. Although interesting, it is not appropriate for wikipedia. --Kzollman 04:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure original research, unclear how it could not be. Please note that Iaoue is by the same author, and suffers the same issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV original essay. Megan1967 07:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands, original research. The author should consider submitting the piece to a Peer Review publication. El_C 12:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - --Tomtom 16:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-needs cleaning up , but an interesting and informative article.--Numerousfalx 16:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep (Striking out comment due to it being from Iasson/Faethon --Deathphoenix 22:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment: Above is an unsigned vote by User:Aeropus II of Macedon [1], which contradicts the current arbitration injunction against him. I believe this offense means he can be blocked for up to a week. --Deathphoenix 18:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since he's using an account with a public password, he's blocked every time he creates one of these accounts. His votes should be ignored. RickK 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Above is a signed comment by User:Deathphoenix which contradicts the current arbitration injunction against him. I believe this offense means User:Deathphoenix can be blocked for up to a week... Are you nuts? :LOL: This injuction is clearly not against me... Aeropus II of Macedon 19:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• You're Faethon/Iasson. You are once again blocked for creating a public account. RickK 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. It would have been nice if some of the above keep votes had given reasons why they think this should be kept. DaveTheRed 19:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • explain what? The article explains itself. Read it. Aeropus II of Macedon 19:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Public account. RickK 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • לא סיבה מוצדקת, lead reads: This article examines the criticism [...] that has been made by the On Line Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906, and by The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910. No source is used for the criticisms of the two encyclopedias. Thus, to reiterate, as it stands, it's an original criticism. I make no comment about whether it's valid or not, the suggestion in my above vote speaks for itself, at any rate. El_C 20:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, you voted delete. Note that I only asked for explainations for the keep votes. DaveTheRed 02:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Your request notwithstanding, my comment was directed to Aeropus II of Macedon. El_C 02:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately Aeropus was banned to death so he cannot answer to. I am his beloved child, but I dont know what to answer on behalf of him. Aeropus, we will always remember you. sniff... Aeschines Socraticus 05:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Faethon/Iasson yet again, blocked yet again as long as he keeps letting people know his password. RickK 05:51, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 21:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal essay, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten Article. "The Tetragrammaton in the Bible" has been rewritten. Seeker02421 14:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I fail to see how the rewritten version addresses the issue of original research. The lead (now) reads: It is the intent of this article to present some of the evidence that is found in the On Line Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 and in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 that indicates that [...]. Again, presentation of evidence based on whose reserach? El_C 23:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Over and over the Article is quoting either "The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906" or the Article is quoting "The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910" The evidence is in the quoted statements.
  • However I did fail to use quotation marks, I used bulleted sentences:
  • Quote #1
  • Quote #2
  • Quote #3
  • Seeker02421 01:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Where encyclopedias are being quoted using bulleted sentences, I added quotation marks to the bulleted sentences. Seeker02421 02:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I realize the article addresses published sources, it nonetheless still needs a soruce for the arguments it makes against/for the CE and JE positions. If someone has already made these claims in the scholarship, then they need to be cited. If the article is the first to make these arguments (at least, notably), then it needs to be in the scholarship first, outside of Wikipedia. Sorry. El_C 02:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten Article. The Tetragrammaton in the Bible has been rewritten again. This article has previously been linked to the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton, and it still may provide additional information concerning a specific issue of interest to some, but not all persons who read the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton.Seeker02421 23:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to / merge with Tetragrammaton until somebody comes up with references for criticism. Imho, these cases can just be merged/redirected, by any user, and don't need to grace VfD. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be pure discussion, and I don't really see how it either identifies a new entity for the article or how it would add to the Tetragrammaton article. -- Glen Finney 19:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd hate to be the WP:VFD/Old person who has to try to merge this thing, if that were to be the consensus. --Deathphoenix 20:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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