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: deleted and redirected to Joshua, per WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahushua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know what this article is supposed to be about, but it seems to be a duplicate of Joshua, Yeshua, Yeshu, and/or Jesus. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speedy? and I quote, "YAHUSHUA article at Wikipedia: BLOTTED-OUT! (As of 9-25-2006)" The article also mentions having been redireced. This reads like OR or something made up in school one day. It is not referenced Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the "blotted out" comment refers to its redirection to Yeshua. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. How about just reverting it to Jofrst's edit. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to be saying "this is an alternative spelling of Joshua, Yeshua, etc and I want it to have a standalone article rather than a redirect and if it isn't I'm going to scream and scream until I'm sick" (that's how I read "If other people can post their variations of the name and not have theirs "blotted" out, than this version has the right to stay as well.", anyway). Tough. Redirect to Joshua unless the author can provide any verifiable evidence that Yahushua (as opposed to Joshua, etc) is anything more substantive than Yet Another Way Of Transliterating From Hebrew To Latin Characters. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a badly written gibbering wreck of an article! Completely POV (Just look at the opening). Not sure why we are going to AfD, since the guy who removed the speedy and added an AfD (I think) seems to be pushing for delete anyway! The Kinslayer 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the article doesn't seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had articles speedily deleted for WP:Complete bollocks before. Without sources, and with it's serious POV issue, this article certainly qualifies as that as far as I'm concerned! Not a big deal anyway, I just wanted to know for future reference. The Kinslayer 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Oddly enough, Being Complete Bollocks isn't in and of itself a SD criterion, per WP:CSD. Complete Bollocks might qualify as WP:CSD#G3, but I'm inclined to believe that this just about qualifies as Patent nonsense of the second kind: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's exactly what I feel about this article. I guess I just used the wrong term to refer to it. I know Complete bollocks isn't an actual SD criteria, but I have put it as a reason for an SD before and had it upheld, and I honestly didn't think anyone was going to object to THIS article being deleted! The Kinslayer 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have been more specific. Speedy as a repost? Or can we just redirect and have done with it? On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent it being reverted to its present state. Perhaps speedy and protect against recreation? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - why is this even up for AFD? This is simply a case of petulant vandalism which can be reverted. -- Whpq 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect and close per Whpq. Kavadi carrier 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect and close as per User:Whpq Xdenizen 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:58, 7 November 2006 (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.