Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Add links
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 - made into a disambig page - SimonP 15:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Quest for the Historical Jesus[edit]

Original research, personal essay. No sources given for any of the statements in it. Nothing wrong with it, all sensible stuff, but all presented on the sole authority of the contributor. Should not be kept in its present form. (By the way, this is not a re-creation of the previously deleted material under this title).

The topic is encyclopedic—and is presently dealt with in the article Historicity of Jesus.

I personally think the disposition of The Quest for the Historical Jesus should simply be delete, because I don't think this is an appropriate title, and not one that anyone would be likely to type in when looking for this material.

However, two redirects are worth considering. One is to Historicity of Jesus. The other is to Albert Schweitzer, because the title is extremely similar to Albert Schweitzer's famous book on this topic, The Quest of the Historical Jesus and is a plausible mistake for someone looking for Schweitzer's book. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect as suggested above. Android79 02:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Historicity of Jesus. Lacrimosus 02:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It could even conceivably be a disambig for Schweitzer and Historicity of Jesus, though a redirect to the latter is quite acceptable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's all very well, but what to do with the existing content? It appears to be a well-written essay with very little POV-pushing, and it would be a shame to just delete it. I suggest merging some of the background material into Historicity of Jesus, to offset that article's fragmentory nature. Or transwiki to wikibooks. Keep as the current disambiguation page. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's more than just a plausible mistake for Schweitzer's book title; there are numerous references on Google to Schweitzer's book that do give the title as "for". Should probably redirect to Schweitzer. I'd also suggest that the book appears notable enough that maybe an article on the book itself might not be a bad idea; if there already is one or somebody wants to write one, redirecting this title there might be an even better idea. Bearcat 02:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree, but I'm not that person... BTW I assume Schweitzer's book was written in German so the title is a translation, but all sixteen copies in several editions in my local public library network's online category use "of." and it has stuck in my mind precisely because "for" would seem more idiomatic... just as On the Edge of the Primeval Forest" has always sounded odd because "Jungle" would seem to be the natural term... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Schweitzer is probably best. I wouldn't bother merging any of the material. It reads like a personal essay, and I think a merge would cause more trouble than it's worth. DaveTheRed 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Albert Schweitzer. Megan1967 04:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We now have at least four articles:
  • the neutrality of at least two of which is disputed. This seems too many and too much non-neutrality. Uncle G 09:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • Comment I've rewritten it as a disambiguation page. The original essay to which the above comments refer is here. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Comment And Megan1967 failed to notice Historical Jesus, which I've now added to the dab. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • I failed to notice or are you just wanting to start a fight? Just about every other editor has suggested what I just said. So I dont understand what context you brought that comment up with considering the majority of comments so far. Megan1967 05:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think Mr. Smith misattributed Uncle G's comment (the bulleted list with four entries, missing Historical Jesus as noted) to you instead. No need for fightin'. :o) Android79 05:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay I'll take your word for it, Android. Megan1967 06:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Whoa! I screwed up bigtime. a) Wrote what should have been a thank-you so that it sounded like criticism and b) misdirected it. My apologies. Still haven't got the knack of this newfangled "on line" communication, it would seem. Let's try this again.
  • Comment My thanks to Uncle G for pointing out two other articles on the "historical Jesus." I've since found a third one, named, oddly, Historical Jesus which would be another candidate as a redirect, reinforcing my feeling that it should be a dab. I've added it to the page.
  • Keep in its present form as a disambiguation page. Good work, Smith.--Christofurio 15:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This should be about the book and the book only. If there is enough info on the book make it an article. If not redirect to Albert Schweitzer. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Schweitzer. -Sean Curtin 02:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the piece, I am heartened by the response. I wrote it only because I did not find the historicity page, which goes far beyond what I wrote, off the cuff, but did find a page whose author read the Bible with little critical appreciation. Redirect it anywhere it should go.

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Quest_for_the_Historical_Jesus&oldid=1054174765"