Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian groups converting Jews

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 11 "deletes", 6 "keeps" (2 very new users discounted), 2 commenters who did not express a clear opinion and one "merge". The merge recommendation was generally rejected as an inappropriate target. No alternate target was suggested.

Right around the start of the dicussion, the content and title were changed significantly. However, votes against the article continued after the revisions and none of the early "delete" voters returned to change their votes leading me to conclude that they were unconvinced by the changes.

Looking carefully at the current content, I see an orphaned article which appears to me to be expressing opinions about topics already well covered (and better sourced) in other articles. The content is internally inconsistent. Since the VfD discussion, the article has been neglected. I am going to add my own opinion to the decision and call this (barely) a "delete" decision but without prejudice against the re-creation of the article in a more coherent format. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian groups converting Jews
Inherently POV, un-encyclopedic, original research Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it can ever really be turned into a worthwhile article. Whimemsz 19:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unable to decide how to vote at this time. This article as it is when it was listed on vfd seems to be entirely changed from its state yesterday.  Even the title is different.  What happened.  I saw revert to original title and content and then relist on vfd.  Sirkumsize 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article seems to be pushing a pretty clear point of view, although it's a lot more subtle than I would have expected. I'm not sure that this collection is useful, however.  Kelly Martin 21:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title before the move was alternative claims of Jew, Judaism and Israelite. Even less encyclopedic than the current one. Peter Isotalo 21:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article as it stands at the time of this writing is poorly written iin places, and questionably sourced, this article should be fixed, not scrapped. The tension between Judaism and Chrisinaity is an important peice of knowledge, and the attempted and actual conversion of "Jews" to Christians is large part of that. We definatly shouldn't back away just because it is contraversial. I think we should edit, rather than scrap it. --Tznkai 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: 's second edit. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I will vouch for 's nonsockness. Kelly Martin 21:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

-Goodoldpolonius2: I don't know about that, and if it has no new information, fine, but we shouldn't be deleting it into "unencyclopedic" or POV, that would be inconsistent with the deletion policy--Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article started as a disturbance to make a point, and has now been turned into a pointless article.  Tznkai, this same subject is dealt with in many other locations, including Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity, Christianity and anti-Semitism, and Jewish view of Jesus --Goodoldpolonius2 21:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

-Comment:Jayjg I both missed your point, and was editing under tnzkai for a while. Please explain on my talk page.--Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The possibility that this is duplicate material is a valid reason for a merge and redirect, but I don't feel that the articles Goodoldpolonius2 cited are more natural fits, either. Also, from an unrelated conversation with User:tznkai on IRC, I can agree that, while he's a relatively new user, he's not a nonce voter on this article. Geogre 02:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inherently POV. JFW | T@lk  23:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep- if its POV clean it up! An article on Christian groups that seek to convert Jews to Christianity is a legitimate subject for an NPOV article, unless they are specifically covered elsewhere. This article maybe POV (although I personally can't see where as it stands) - but there is nothing inherently POV about the subject. --Doc (t) 23:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Qualified Keep - The article requires a better title, first of all. Many Christians and Christian groups "convert" Jews and other nonChristians regularly around the world.  The groups listed in the article are special because they purposefully convert Jews in particular (or are composed of ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity) as their primary function.  Secondly, the article's text takes what seems to be offense at the idea of Christians converting others, which many Christians feel is an essential component of their faith. -Acjelen 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In serious need of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I have a number of problems with this article.  Its writing is anemic, as noted, but the title is illogical.  Is this how the material will be sought?  Is this an apt description of the contents?  The article is fairly NPOV, but it's also fairly inaccurate.  It glosses over the fact that most Jewish religious groups are not messianic.  It's simply not a majority position to look for a messiah, these days.  Also, while the groups listed as proselytizers of Jews are proselytizers of Jews, there is a real nightmare of potential POV addition (and that happens with a wiki), as well as defamation.  I'm not at all comfortable with the article, but it's not a deletion policy violation, so far as I can see. Geogre 02:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Klonimus 05:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, but provide external references. Very relevant and very encyclopaedic, and I don't believe it is NPOV. Internodeuser 08:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 08:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it is a 'non-topic'? --Doc (?) 09:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd like an explanation too. I can only assume that this subject has some history I wasn't aware of.  In my opinion there's no question: the various fundy "Jews for Jesus" groups do exist and do attempt to recruit Jewish people. Here Ariel Sharon meets a member, Jay Sekulow (Jerusalem Post). If the article has POV problems in the content, that should be fixed by editing.  The name is not POV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect with religious conversion, which already covers such material. :-) &mdash; RJH 15:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This stuff is covered in plenty of places elsewhere. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Where else? religious conversion doesn't really cover it - in fact, it has little on conversion to Christianity - and nothing on conversion 'from' Judaism. However, conversion 'to' Judaism has a sub-article. There seem to be a lot of votes here, which make assertions but offer no specifics. --Doc (?) 15:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete One could probably find a group of religion X trying to convert religion Y for just about every combination of X and Y. Doesn't mean that it's worth of including in an encyclopedia.  Xcali 02:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am really uncomfortable with the idea of moving this article to a new title, completely reworking it so its silly, and then listing it on vfd.  If this strategy works however I may try it myself to get rid of wikipedia articles that don't meet my taste!  Sirkumsize 07:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The previous version was just as silly, if not sillier. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Factual, accurate. When has religion not been inherently POV? The fact of the matter is this deals with a subject that is controversial, this hardly makes something incorrect. Evangelism has always been controversial, but it is an issue that is valid and necessary. Keep. M0RHI 21:06 08 June 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 12:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .