Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ's Letters
- 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Christ's Letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. PROD removed by article creator because of the number of hits on a facebook page. I think this is entirely inadequate, the article has no independant references & I can find nothing of any solidity. TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The subject does not seem notable based on available sources. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.- MrX 21:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely Delete Facebook hits do not merit notability, and all of the references go to a self published page. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Neither the books of the collected letters, nor the letters themselves pass notability guidelines. I don't mean this to sound like I have an opinion either way on their legitimacy, but I've studied Christianity as part of a degree program and these letters were never brought up in any of my classes- not even when we were discussing past and current apocrypha. Stuff like this can be notable, but this particular apocrypha is not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:A7. Draft article was created at Draft:Christ's Letters, but the SPA author did not submit it for review, and created the live page without waiting for a response; draft has since been declined. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- The letters are a variety of original research. Unless some one can provide independent evidence that any significant body of people seriously believe theat the author is actually in contact with Christ, I would suggest that this is a NN self-publihsed series of works. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as above letters are original research, i would be more tha happy if evidence could be provided that they were records of an actual conversation between the author in question and Jesus but without this the reliability of the source falls into question Amortias (T)(C) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well... the legitimacy of the letters isn't really the big thing here. It's mostly whether or not the letters have received coverage in places that are considered to be reliable sources, as you can have something that appears to be complete nonsense or obviously fake but still receives coverage in RS. It's fairly rare that something does get to that level given the frequency of such claims and the difficulty in the person getting taken remotely seriously enough to merit coverage, but it does happen. Usually it happens when the subject becomes part of a larger thing, such as a cult following. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:28, 11 May 2014 (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.