Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep (I suppose this counts as a rough consensus). sjorford →•← 18:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Encyclopedic. No offence, but existence still unproven.
- Keep. Lots of fictional characters have pages. Ben-w
- Keep. 23,700,000 Google hits, although some of them could refer to Mexicans. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination by known troll. android↔talk 00:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. ditto - I was going to add that no serious histoian doubts his existence, but this isn't even a debate worth having --Doc Glasgow 00:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep bad faith. Gazpacho 01:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep well-attested historic personage who is the center of a belief system held by about two billion people. Bad-faith nomination, but easiest and most proper thing to do is just rack up the string of "keep" votes. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination.-gadfium 01:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Jesus' existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to the obvious notability of the subject. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic. No offence, but his non-existence still unproven. --Allen3 talk 14:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opium of the people."
- Keep. No offence, but existence of valid reasons to delete still unproven. (And as others have noted here Jesus' existence has been proven by any reasonable test.) Eric119 18:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete verifiability. Did he really rise from the dead, and was his mother a virgin?Keep What would Johnny Damon do? Klonimus 21:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)- The article does not say Jesus rose from the dead. It says "According to Christian belief, and the New Testament, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion..." It is easy to verify that the New Testament does say this, in Matthew 28:6-7, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:6, and John 20:18 to name four, and it is easy to verify that it is a tenet of Christian belief; the Nicene Creed says "and he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures." It is article IV of the XXXIX Articles of Faith of the Church of England: "Christ did truly arise from death." So what the article says is easily verifiable. The same is true of the virgin birth. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure he's kidding, Dpbsmith—Klonimus is not generally known around here for strong deletionist tendencies. :) TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless, of course, a vote to delete an entry would benefit Israeli propaganda purposes. (See his vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Right to exist. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not say Jesus rose from the dead. It says "According to Christian belief, and the New Testament, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion..." It is easy to verify that the New Testament does say this, in Matthew 28:6-7, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:6, and John 20:18 to name four, and it is easy to verify that it is a tenet of Christian belief; the Nicene Creed says "and he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures." It is article IV of the XXXIX Articles of Faith of the Church of England: "Christ did truly arise from death." So what the article says is easily verifiable. The same is true of the virgin birth. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, for Christ's sake! -- 8^D gab 01:27, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
- Keep. Believer in Christ or not, VFD is not a religious debate. Nestea 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Matches no established criteria for deletion. Reason given is invalid, present or even past physical existence is not required of encyclopedia topics. Remaining problems with article should be discussed on the talk page. JRM · Talk 18:14, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Obvious keep and consider blocking user for disrupting the site to make a point. Much as I detest feeding trolls by weighing in on this issue, I figure that any historical figure around whom a religion of two billion followers has sprung is notable for our handful of bits and bytes. - Lucky 6.9 20:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator is either a troll or seriously needs to read WP:POINT. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- SUPER STRONG KEEP! - Keep article, PERMANENTLY BLOCK VFD NOMINATOR. Andros 1337 02:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, isn't April Fools Day at the beginning, not the end of the month? Keep, notably significant figure, with sporadic appearances through art, literature and other sorts of significruft in the last couple thousand years. Antandrus 02:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.