RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Pantera

Pantera | Result: Keep

Pantera (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Keep

1. Cut it way down and stick to the references. It's salvageable. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

   Does this mean that you volunteer to do it?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

   Does it look not-stupid-enough-to-delete now? Or does it need more complete rewriting improvement? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   I suggest treating it as a fringe "theory". Start with the 2nd century rumor and the generic "Panthera", then point out that someone claims that the actual multi-named Roman soldier is identical with the character, not the other way round, as it is now.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   That sounds good. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

2. Subject matter is crucial for the relatively benign claim that Jesus probably wasn't supernatural. Ikanreed (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   You know what? That was a stupid post. That's what. Ikanreed (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   It might not be crucial, but it doesn't hurt, and it does offer an alternative to the virgin birth. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   I agree, but it's a bit like saying aliens provide an alternative to creationism. True, but you don't want to through in your lot with pseudoscience. Cleaned up and clarified, it's a good article. Ikanreed (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
4. I've just read the old version of the article from the day it was nominated for deletion. God, it was shit! FuzzyCatPotato has done a great job of cleaning it up. I think the page as it is now details a notable example of someone questioning Jesus' divinity and is wort keeping for that reason. Spud (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Now it's been turned into a proper article instead of a crappy...whatever the hell we call what she does... it's a keeper. Bicycle^wheel 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete

1. An embarrassment to the wiki, created in the august 2007 by, ahem, Barbara Shack. Apparently some people later added some ridiculous stuff to the article as a protest. It didn't help. ZooGuard (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's pretty terrible. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) The previous terrible version is effectively gone & FuzzyCatPotato's new version is alright, so I withdraw my vote to delete. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

2. The gospel walking-on-water Jesus didn't exist. Somebody with a name like "Jesus" may have existed who gave birth to the mythical Jesus. But if we doubt this guy existed how can we make any comments about an hypothetical father? Delete.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   That seems weak. This article explores the possible father of a possible Jesus, which is relevant to our mission of looking critically at religion. Should we also delete the Jesus page, because Jesus merely possibly existed? Furthermore, if this man really is Jesus's father, then it dispels myths about a virgin birth, making the human Jesus more founded. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   A "possible" father of "possible" person is also weak. It makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Hercules had a human father.

   Furthermore we do have at least two pages which talk about the possible non-existence of Jesus.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   It would be comparable to an article on Herakles' father, if people worshipped Herakles as a god. They don't. More than a billion worship Jesus as a god. It's important to show that it's possible that he had a normal conception and birth, and this article helps that goal. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we disagree.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)