Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:57, 21 November 2007

Kolbrin Bible

Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article Kolbrin was deleted through ProD previously. Fram (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense: this is no theory, but a classical text book which is an essential part of the christian heritage. Fringe theory of p[eople talking about this book a should not be confused with the book itself. It is widely discussed these days and published by several interest groups. It is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entires (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression rpba (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 12:54, 21 November 2007 edit Rpba (talk \| contribs) 208 edits →‎Kolbrin Bible ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:57, 21 November 2007 edit undo Rpba (talk \| contribs) 208 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per [[WP:FRINGE]]. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article [[Kolbrin]] was deleted through ProD previously. [[User:Fram\|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram\|talk]]) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)		Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per [[WP:FRINGE]]. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article [[Kolbrin]] was deleted through ProD previously. [[User:Fram\|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram\|talk]]) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

	Defense: this book is an essential part of the christian heritage. It is widely discussed these days and published by several interest groups. It is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entires (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression [[User:Rpba\|rpba]] ([[User talk:Rpba\|talk]]) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)		Defense: this is no theory, but a classical text book which is an essential part of the christian heritage. Fringe theory of p[eople talking about this book a should not be confused with the book itself. It is widely discussed these days and published by several interest groups. It is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entires (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression [[User:Rpba\|rpba]] ([[User talk:Rpba\|talk]]) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)