Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yauhushua

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 redirect and protect. MER-C 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yauhushua[edit]

Unverifiable original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaohushua and Talk:Yaohushua. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page Yaohushua was involved in an AfD some time ago, for which the result was to redirect that page to Sacred Name Movement. After Yaohushua was finally protected by an admin, the editor who repeatedly reverted that redirect opted to head to the nominated article and change it from a redirect to Yaohushua to contain the content that had originally been deleted from Yaohushua.

That content had been removed because it was unverifiable and most likely original research. No reputable sources have ever been cited in the existence of the Yaohushua article, and there are no findable references of note except those mentioned on the Sacred Name Movement page which lists "Yaohushua"/"Yauhushua" among several other names.

Normally, I would just change this page to redirect to Sacred Name Movement myself, but there is an editor who, based on past actions, will not allow such a change to remain. Therefore, I am nominating it here and voting to redirect it to Sacred Name Movement and protect. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect per nom. As you point out, we'll likely have to do this for all the various spellings of Yahweh/Jehovah that this sect appears to hold sacred.Shawn in Montreal 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, per nom, and see to it that the user is closely watched and possibly blocked if such behavior continues. Dooms Day349 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect Recreation of deleted material. —ShadowHalo 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deletewhy redirect it if an editor refuses to mention it on a page? --Juju 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect or delete and protect not this guy again! What a pain. Salad Days 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Shadow P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect per above --Wildnox (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per nom. --Metropolitan90 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the redirect part and have filed a request for protection. Snowball closing. MER-C 09:27, 29 December 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.