Talk:Christ myth theory

Christ myth theory
Bgc shows "Christ-myth theory" for this, I think more often than this spelling, but, more importantly, it also shows "the Christ myth" lots of times, which would imply that the (alleged) myth is called the Christ myth, and the theory that it's a myth is SoP. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. NISoP DCDuring TALK 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the Ps "Christ myth" and "theory", or are they "Christ", "myth", and "theory"? —Ruakh TALK 18:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I suspect it's the former. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "Christ myth" be likely encyclopedic? Or is WT:NOT a dead letter? If the latter, then perhaps it should be RfDed. As it [ie, WT:NOT has not been, I take it as reflecting some kind of direction for en.wikt. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't RFD it because it doesn't exist. As I implied in my reply to Ruakh above, I'm not sure whether it's SOP, anyway. I'd check our definition and probably usage before commenting. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the ambiguity of the referent in 8 May post above may have made for a misunderstanding. I was referring to the RfD(O) of WT:NOT. (I think there is one or has been one recently.) DCDuring TALK 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete--Pierpao 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I was the one who originally added the entry. I'm new to Wiktionary, what do all the anagrams above mean? I'd like the entry to stay so if I know why it's in the chopping block I could potentially argue on it's behalf. Eugeneacurry 21:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SOP = "sum of parts"; no more than the individual components. WT:NOT is a page WT:NOT describing what Wiktionary is not. RFD is this discussion page (requests for deletion).  RFDO WT:RFDO, a page for nominating deletion of items not in the main namespace. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaretein