Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Persecutions


 * 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 keep. John254 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming Persecutions

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP is not a place for script by script copies/explanations of the bible. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rather excellently sourced, so it's a bit of a shame, can't we transwiki it somewhere? For wikipedia, delete though. --fvw *  05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a WM supported Christianpedia, I doubt we can transwiki it. Anyway, most of the refs are from the same places (different pages of same book, could've used same ref), and its just a essay. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Were it just an essay, it wouldn't have a plethora of sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I looked through WP:NOT and there is nothing that opposes inclusion of content of this kind. And given how well-sourced it is, it obviously meets notability guidelines. We already treat other topics from the gospels (eg Genealogy of Jesus) and single verses (eg But to bring a sword, New Wine into Old Wineskins), so why not this? Honestly, if I changed the section titles, I think it would go a long way towards making it more amenable to others. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look at the sources, they are mostly from the SAME places, just different pages. They mostly cite the opinions of commentators on it. Also avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguements. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But they are scholarly sources, so that's all that particularly matters. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for commentary by a select few! Also See: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Half of it is analyzing the scripture, "patterns", really, does wikipedia NEED that? &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Indiscriminate refers to: FAQ, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics, and news reports. There is nothing in any of WP:NOT which prohibits this article. Moreover, it is more useful to WP than the ridiculous amount of space taken up by "in pop culture" sections and detail-upon-detail of manga crap. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF Arguements please. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Otherstuff argument was in response to "does WP really need this". And you've yet to deal with the fact that WP:NOT does not prohibit this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RAP. Two other editors have agreed that the page does not belong on wikipedia. I really need to start homework, so I'll let others give their thoughts. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that one (accounting for half) of those opinions has changed. The other is a "weak delete", which would seem to be saying that it might not belong, rather than "does not" belong.-Ac44ck (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am making a case to the editors who might come across this after the first 20 minutes since the article was created. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to a Christian GFDL-wiki. I found a list here. Perhaps you could choose the right one from here.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. While I'm not in agreement with this particular aspect of the policy, WP:NOT contains a proscription of "annotated texts", which this appears to be to me.  Unless I'm misinterpreting what is meant by the policy in context.  So, unless it is felt that this article is important enough to WP:IAR (I don't personally think it is), then it should be deleted.  Alternatively, the article could possibly be edited so that it was not in the format of an annotated text, at which point I would change my opinion to keep.  JulesH (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep A significant biblical theme, well documented. This is not annotated text, which refers to an article made up almost entirely of a text, with a minor and incidental sort of annotations as used as footnotes in publishing  texts. Here, the bulk of the article is the explanation of the material and the doctrine. WP does indeed really need this and other articles about portions of the Bible. I would like to be sure that the references cover a range of scholarly opinions, but if they don't, more can be added easily enough. Analyzing the content and meaning of extremely important classic texts is exactly the sort of content Wikipedia should be doing much more of. WP is very much the place  for explanations of the bible done in an academic and NPOV way. (& giving the few lines of text being discussed is appropriate), I wish I had the time to do this for every suitable group of biblical verses. We already analyze each important song in a major album--we don't include all the text since its copyright, but when we do this for the individual Child ballads, or other folksongs, we do include the text. Why should we not cover detailed material on the major religions? That's certainly part of a general encyclopedia. One doesn't need to believe in them to recognize the cultural importance. --the proposed events in the Last Days have been the subject of major serious and erratic discussion in thousands of books for many centuries.  And even if one doesn't think religion is or ought to be of major cultural importance, millions of others do. The appropriate use of OTHERSTUFF as a positive argument is to indicate that something on a particular theme is being singled out for deletion. DGG (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I rechecked the article. The references are indeed a wide range of standard works, from the highest quality publishers. We may be used to material on topics like this being written from a evangelical or denominational POV, but that is not the nature of this article. Perhaps the style of the article is a little more academic and formal than are usual here. I don't particularly see why we should dumb it down, but we could probably copyedit --almost anything can be usefully copyedited to make it a little tighter. DGG (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the Bible is arguably the most important book in human history, in fact Wikipedia is an excellent place for script by script copies/explanations of it, particularly of notable concepts and themes which have been studied and written about in detail over the centuries such as this specific topic. The sources and valid as they are varied.  --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The funny thing about this is that I agree it's probably not an encyclopedic topic, but it meets V, N, RS, and isn't excluded by NOT. Thus, all the Christian doctrines that have a detailed body of scholarly work--which is a lot--merit articles.  Jewish doctrines certainly have a similar background, as might a number of other faiths. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep My only worry would be that such a thorough piece of work amounted to something more than the sum of the parts - ie was original research. That would be the case if there was an agenda going on here, but there doesn't seem to be.  Springnuts (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." - Ac44ck (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The title may be jargon. It seems to be an ancient view of what would be "coming" — and, by some interpretations, has already arrived. Other documents seem to use the same phrasing. An informed visitor who is seeking information on this topic may look for it by exactly this name. Others may be at least initially confused that perhaps part of the "future" occurred centuries ago.-Ac44ck (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent, and fact-based speculations are welcome."-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, this article does present speculation, but its extremely notable speculation by one of the most notable figures in world history, and speculation discussed very prominently as part of a real religion. There are exceptions: we keep the article on the Last Judgment on similar grounds. Heat Death of the Universe likewise. DGG (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I think this article belong somewhere. I am not opposed to Transwiki, but if we do keep it, it needs to have its titles changed and some other style work. But it is well-ref'd, and I dont see how it actually breaks the style guidelines.Mrathel (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just as we can have articles on individual sketches from TV comedy shows we can have articles on passages of major books. All that is needed for an article to exist is sufficient coverage in secondary sources, such as is demonstrated here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Phil Bridger's comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.