Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded)

Authentic Matthew

This VFD concerns the above AND its copy+paste duplicate, if recreated, at Authentic Gospel of Matthew.

Article is

• a large source text
• discussion of Eusebius' opinions on Biblical Canon
• Original research assuming accuracy of Jerome's erroneous [according to the majority of relevant scholars] claim that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the same as the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites

This was merged by me, as a result of someone else requesting a merge, as follows

• The source text is already at WikiSource
• Salvagable content about Eusebius and Biblical Canon was already moved to Eusebius and Biblical Canon.
• Salvagable content about the Gospel of the Hebrews merged there.
• Unsalvagable original research deleted.

This was then changed into a redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews.

There followed an edit war between editors restoring the article and me returning the redirect. The editors restoring the article (not including the recent addition of Mel Etitis, who was requested to do so by one of the aforementioned editors, and appears to have a vendetta against me for no known reason) are in my opinion sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer - the original creator of the article. For further discussion of this alleged sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer.

Votes

• DELETE. ~~~~ 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• No vote (for the moment) - I've a Phd in New Testament - and I'm going to need time to get my head round this - it is all quite technical. This article looks to me like original research - and very questionable at that. So I think I'm with User:-Ril-. However, I'm not sure that redirecting Authentic Matthew to Gospel of the Hebrews is valid either, I'm off to do a little thinking. --Doc (?) 22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I chose the redirect merely based on the fact that most of the content that was merged rather than deleted was merged to Gospel of the Hebrews. I have no particular preference over where it gets redirected to, and have no quarrel if it is preferred that it goes to Gospel of Matthew or other such article. ~~~~ 23:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, enough this is doing my head in,- this article (or rather essay) is making all sorts of assumptions. To cut a long and complicated story short - it is original research, POV-ridden, and very confusing. Delete - I see no need for any redirections. --Doc (?) 23:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc Glasgow as POV, original research etc. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete jamesgibbon 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no personal use for this article (there is already too much biblical trivia), but it is mentioned in Apocrypha. Those links to this article are months old(possibly years - I could not find when it was added), so it's obviously something that more than a single contributor knows about (ergo not completely original research). If we leave ANY apocrypha, I'm sad to say this must stay. Unsinkable 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User has 32 prior edits. ~~~~ 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

N.b. the item of the apocrypha in question is alleged by the article to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Nazarenes. These 3 already have articles. ~~~~ 07:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, orignial research. --nixie 01:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, as per Doc. Fernando Rizo 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. My vote is partly the result of having seen the way that -Ril (talk · contribs) has behaved over this article, but mainly that there's a genuine encyclopædia topic here. The content of the article isn't the issue (that can be edited; though, for the record, I don't think that it is wholly original research); if it were, the article should have been placed at RfC, not VfD (just as -Ril-'s RfC against Melissadolbeer should not have been leapt into before any other attempt at mediation of moderation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Melissadolbeer's behaviour with sockpuppets as described in the RFC is beyond acceptable. The article was edited. Melissadolbeer + sockpuppets reverted it back. ~~~~ 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record 1) I am not Melissa's sockpuppet but rather her husband. 2) Melissa has never used a sockpuppet! 3) I do know sockpuppets are legal at Wikipedia but not to vote more than once or to lie and abuse people like my wife. Over the years you have hurt many people including my wife and that is what I object to! People are more important than articles or your ego. --Poorman 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and list on Peer Review so that original research can be weeded out. Interesting and encyclopaedic topic. I'm not sure the current title is the best though. David | Talk 11:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comments and discussion moved to talk page.
• Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_>|< 12:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --TruthCrusader
• Delete, pick one of the reasons listed above. --Scimitar ^parley 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR Friday 05:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep

1) Original research: Jerome, Parker and all the writers cited, did the original research! They have all been published. Melissa merely summed them up in an objective factual style into a good article. She does not have an original thought in her head.

2) My vote is mainly the result of having seen the way that -Ril (talk · contribs) has behaved over this article (see edit history of Ril and 81.156.177.21

--Poorman 08:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.