Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The myths of December 25th

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 --JForget 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The myths of December 25th

The myths of December 25th (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article lacks a reliable source, and thus can be considered original research. Little to no context on subject matter. Borders on fringe theory if not random religious excogitation. Outright non-encyclopedic.

I would have Prod'ed it but there is an ongoing discussion in its talk page on its encyclopedic value. Dali-Llama 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as copyright violation, as indicated at the top of the article's Talk page. The primary author claims to have an email asserting the article is usable under the GDFL but 1) its apparently in Portugese and 2) we cannot take the editor's assertion that the email is real. Beyond that, it appears to be novel synthesis or pure original research. No reliable sources cited. -- Kesh 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio violations and recreation of deleted material (formerly The myth of December 25th. Collectonian 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The discussion on the article's talk page indicates that a number of the claims in this article are in question. Besides the problems described above, Wikipedia already has a much better article on this subject at Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As Metropolitan90 says, there is already an article dealing with this (as one would expect). Crazysuit 05:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I've heard all these claims before, and they're little more than internet "conspiracy theory" drivel that gets spread around blogs and video sharing sites with plenty of enthusiasm but little in the way of fact-checking. Already covered in a more balanced and reliable way elsewhere on WP. ~Matticus ^T_C 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio and re-creation of previously deleted material that has not been DRVed. If someone wants this to exist, DRV it. --AliceJMarkham 10:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and allegations of possible copyright violation and abuse of processper AliceJMarkham. Bearian 20:18, 8 November 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.