- 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 of the debate was delete --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confused original research, non-encyclopedic topic. Jayjg (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's not clear what the author was getting at, but the page's name seems fairly useless. Flowerparty 06:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the content could become part of the Gospel of the Hebrews article, but I don't see any need for an article about these two as a pair. -Acjelen 06:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, any discussion should be at Gospel of the Hebrews, but since this is unreferenced research, there is nothing to be gained by a merge. --Doc (?) 09:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of encyclopedic significance. Barno 15:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a confused fragment that wants to say something about something Jerome states he read in the Gospel of the Hebrews. (A little poking around will find the passage over at Wikisource.) The use of idiosyncratic forms of Jesus ("Yeshua"), & James ("Jacob") only adds to the confusion. If this were better written, I'd say merge what's there with James the Just; but nothing links to this, so let's just pretend it was never written & remove it. -- llywrch 00:28, 7 September 2005 (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.