Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus and comparative mythology

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 Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and comparative mythology

An obvious POV fork and little more than a jumble of unsourced & unrelated statements. Anything on this article which is well sourced and relevant can be easily merged into the main Jesus article. RucasHost 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like standard comparative religion to me - people do this stuff for a living, and have for a long time. There are libraries full of such analysis of Jesus. And I seriously doubt another word will fit in the main Jesus article. It's not a great article, but that's another matter. MarkBul 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What he said ^ . Edit maybe, but definitely don't delete. --Jammoe 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - there is no obvious POV fork here. This article is a normal comparative religion article, it needs a little clean-up but it's very well sourced and is plainly far too long to be merged back into Jesus (and that's coming from a Mergist Wikipedian). I can't understand why this was brought to AFD--Cailil ^talk 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Reviewing the nominator's contributions, there is a strong pro-Christian bias and I am not entirely sure this was nominated in good faith. I think the article is pretty well-sourced with 27 footnotes. I am concerned, however, that we have Jesus and comparative mythology, Historicity of Jesus, Jesus myth hypothesis, and Historical Jesus, but given the long length of each I suppose it's understandable. Suggest a WP:SNOWball close. ←Ben^B4 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. I agree that this shouldn't be merged into the main article. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Mandsford 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it's apporpriate to go throwing all this into th emain Jesus article. BenB4 has a good point, however, about the multiple origin articles and a merge might be worthwhile. Crimson30 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and well-sourced. This is a major theme of Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth. Certainly, it needs to go on a diet. Bearian 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. this article has been bashed by both uber-Christians and uber-anti-Christians, because it takes a neutral stance. Jesus myth hypothesis is about the fringy notion that Jesus was just made up by a bunch of eccentrics. This topic is embraced by both sides, by the uber-anti-Christians because they buy it, and by the uber-Christians because it is so easily refuted as incoherent. Christ and mythology is too important a topic to be left to articles on fringe scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.