Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Contact me on my talk page if you want this userfied. Tim Song (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ

This is a misuse of the FAQ page format. A talk page FAQ should normally only be created when there is widespread consensus on specific issues. In this case, the issues are still being debated and discussed extensively by long-time, good-faith users. This "FAQ" was created by one side of the debate to attempt to stifle the opposition. *** Crotalus *** 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, perhaps even speedy keep. Not a valid argument for deletion. Please take your debate about the contents of the FAQ back to the article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I'm not even involved in that debate. Secondly, my point is that there shouldn't even be a FAQ page unless consensus exists amongst the regular editors, and no such consensus exists here. *** Crotalus *** 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, My view largely lines up with Bill's. It can be salvaged. NJMauthor (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, from my recollection, there WAS a consensus. Of course, a consensus is subject to change, but that is not a valid reason to simply delete it; rather, it's a valid reason to modify it. And I have no doubt that sometime in the near future, that is exactly what is going to happen. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't one now. So, wouldn't it be productive to pull it down, address the issues, and put something back which does what an FAQ should do? We could make 1 and 2 first cabs off the rank at mediation. I think 1 has to be agreed on before we can get anywhere, anyway. Is someone like Wells, who now admits the likelihood of some kind of human Jesus, a Christ myth theorist? Or is this article only about people who promote the likelihood that it is complete fiction? This needs to be resolved before we can move on. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the FAQ reflected the consensus that existed at one time. With the FAC procress the consensus seems to have weakened but the NPOV caution seems to be enough to address this. Also, given that the FAQ's most contentious sections are mostly just long lists of quotes from relevant specialists, I think the page is helpful in bringing new editors up to speed on the state of the scholarship in the area. Crotalus apparently considers this "stifling the opposition", I'd say it's educating them. Eugene (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userify. I think it's better to delete this for now than to have edit wars over it. The FAQ was written to reflect one side of the debate, and has been used as a bit of a battering ram ever since, with editors repeatedly told to read it when they raise legitimate concerns—or even before commenting in an RfC—as though it's the Delphic oracle. FAQs should confine themselves to issues that really do reflect overall consensus. A quick look through the talk pages shows there has never been consensus on the points made in this FAQ, including among experienced editors or those who've contributed a lot to the article. If we want to keep the list of quotes, we can retain those at Talk:Christ myth theory/Quotes from sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FAQs are supposed to save time and effort by answering commonly asked questions. The time and effort wasted on edit wars over this highly biased FAQ make this page counter productive. This is Eugene answring his critics so the page title should be User:Eugeneacurry/FAQ . Sole Soul (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reading through the archives the FAQ is the work of a couple of editors who found a lull time in editing by others and seized their chance. It has constantly been disputed by numerous editors and Eugene and Bill are using it lock down the article in their preferred biased state as it has a semi official look to it at the head of the talk page. Sophia ♫ 06:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete for now. Replace once consensus is achieved. It is clear and uncontroversial. It defines "Christ Myth Theory", makes clear it is a fringe theory, explains the inevitable preponderance of Christian contributers to the debate, and explains the need for the article. I haven't read any examples yet but, from the above comments, it seems some editors are misusing it in some way. If that is the case, I suggest shunning them. That is, they are bathwater, this is the baby. Anthony (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is prone to fly by editors who are generally uninformed of the topic (quoting their favourite amateur polemicist, etc) , and the FAQ provides scope and verifiable RS on where the debate stands. --Ari (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It says nothing about the debate. It defines the term, which is essential. But there is dispute about that. It shows that it is a fringe theory, but in a juvenile, disrespectful tone. It explains the inevitable preponderance of Christian contributers to the debate, and the need for a devoted article. It says nothing about the debate. And it doesn't belong here in its present form while there is so much dissent. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, at least the current version. Currently, the FAQ only contains information that one would expect to see in the article, but that is being debated on the talk page. Frankly, it seems tendentious. Now, I could perhaps see an FAQ linked to the Jesus article, which would direct readers with different questions as to which article they should go to to find their answers. But right now this reads like a parallel article, like one set of views on the topic presented in Q and A form. It is not about misconceptions, it covers material fundamental to the article itself. I just do not get it. If the decision is to "keep" it, I think NPOV issues need to be addressed and the administrator judging the result of the AfD should provide some guidance as to what FAQs are for, and not for, to help us improve them. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is similar to the one at Talk:European Union. I’m sure pages like these can be used in an even-handed, constructive manner, but at the same time I doubt I’ll ever see it happen that way. Even for the best of such pages, when the other option is to read it until I believe it (otherwise refrain from commenting) I would prefer to delete it. ―AoV² 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am watching this article as an uninvolved admin. This page is unhelpful, especially to newer editors who may take the information here as gospel, when of course it is the opinions of various editors. This information should be debated on the talkpage, not presented as a fait accompli here, not to mention that it is prone to edit-warring in itself. If information presented here is useful, it should be userfied by the editors who want to present it and linked in talkpage discussions. Having it as a subpage of the article itself lends it a gravitas that it does not deserve. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These FAQ pages can be useful when they give short, straight-forward answers that are unlikely to be contested. This one does not. I see it as yet another attempt to win the reader over to a particular point of view and thus contravenes WP:NPOV. Graham Colm (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of consensus. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I perused the archives in the hope of understanding how such a shabby article could go unimproved for 4 years. I have that understanding now. The comments above by Sophia and Graham Colm best express my view on the FAQ. PYRRHON  talk   21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is too much controversy surrounding the history of the article and the use of the FAQ to allow the FAQ to stand. Per SlimVirgin, the quotations might be kept somewhere as a raw resources page. When the article and its talk page have been stable for a couple of months a new FAQ may arise from consensus on the talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer Archive as a valid but misdirected contribution to the discussion on the article over "delete" but agree, is not a good page, reading as it does like one persons point of view, but unsigned. If there is any good in such an approach, better to start fresh. Do not delete out of fear of dooming ourselves to repeat the same mistakes again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as Archive Seems best choice. I am loath to eradicate on general principles, but it clearly includes material which some wish to discuss currently. WRT the comment that it represents what editors thought - that is true of just about every FAQ or article out there, and is not, per se, a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion: I have just reworked the FAQ

Removed the insults, hyperbole and verbose irrelevancies. Anthony (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep this than nothing. Eugene (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.