Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical veracity of the Apostles

:{{la|Historical veracity of the Apostles}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical veracity of the Apostles}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Historical veracity of the Apostles}})

Delete Original research. This is an original synthesis with no evidence at all that the opinions expressed come from anyone other than the author of the article. (PROD was removed by the author of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Pure WP:OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Ben MacDui 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, pure WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete OR essay, POV pushing. There are certainly other articles which deal with the historical identities of the men reflected in the New Testament, but this is not an encyclopedic treatment of the topic and there is no good way to make it so. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The article undoubtedly presents itself as original research, but an editor with expertise in theology may be able to find sources for most (if not all) of the concrete assertions within. Though I do not have the available time to comb through the entire article, I saw at least two specific ideas that can be sourced with ease. The first is that of Petros vs Petra, a detail central to the disagreements between catholicism and protestantism, is dealt with in vivid detail by [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Petros+Petra&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 many publications]--one of which dates back [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-B03AAAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Petros+Petra&ots=VrWrazMLWX&sig=RnAL-DuIky2o7IVWrn_8GBiRWUM#v=onepage&q&f=false 289 years]. The second is that of the Bariona-BarJona dubiosity, which appears in [http://www.jstor.org/pss/3262255 published literature]. Because AfD is not a place to hash out content problems, I propose that we consider recruiting an expert in hagiography (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Theology) to bring it up to par.   — C M B J   20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

:No, thanks. There may be some ideas and assertions in this text that are correct and possibly verifiable but the article is written entirely as a lengthy and argumentative pure WP:OR essay and is simply unsalvageable. Someone else, if and when an appropriate expert might be found, may at some point in the future want to write a WP article on this topic that has at least some semblance of compliance with Wikipedia content policies, but it would have to be done totally from scratch. The current text is not salvageable and not improvable and must be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. It starts with "This analysis merely compares the evidence reported in the canonical gospels to the extra Christian historical evidence we received, highlighting the inconsistencies" and ends with "The mixture of languages and the manipulation of the words translated, have been, in time, deliberately exploited to change the meaning." This is obviously an essay, and OR. Nothing to salvage here. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as essay and original research. --Yopie (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete there does not appear to be much here that wouldn't have to be totally rewritten. The title doesn't seem particularly helpful or accurate. If someone wants to salvage some of this discussion, perhaps adding a section to Gospel that describes some of this material would be appropriate. Maybe merge some of it, but do not redirect. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally OR; hopelessly unencyclopedic essay with no reference to any of a wide body of literature on the subject (see e.g. The Bible and history and Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles).  --Lambiam 20:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per the detailed arguments above Dreamspy (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete -- This is no more than an essay and largely OR. It even declares itself not to be original research. If there was anything worth saving (and I do not think there is), it ought to be merged with something on the historicity of the new Testament generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (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.