Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Woodrow: Difference between revisions
→[[Ralph Woodrow]]: Delete |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
*'''Delete''' without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:00, 30 July 2005
Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
This topic should not be deleted.
The subject matter is religion.
Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?
There are a series of articles that suggest that
Christianity comes from pagan origins.
- Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.
The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers
Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.
It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)
The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.
THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.
Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.
ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.
What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader
to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.
Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .
The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!
Micheal@filecastle.com
- Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android79 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)