Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed Bible prophecies


 * 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed Bible prophecies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is rife with original research and synthesis. It seems clear that the whole of the article is intended as a criticism of Christianity rather than good-faith, neutral content. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Failed Biblical prophecies are well-documented in serious scholarly sources and useful for historical criticism (the prime example being the dating of Daniel), but this article cites too few such sources and its lede is an attack on a "common argument used by Christians" (actually on American fundamentalism, it seems). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. For example, what does the article mean by "failed Bible prophecies"? How would people know if a Bible prophecy "failed"? Some content could theoretically be merged to Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Bible, but only if reliably sourced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete pure WP:OR and premise "failed Bible prophecies" undefined, quite possibly undefinable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, terrible even for an essay, which doesn't belong here anyway. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to delete, none of the references are anything of my own. They can all be found elsewhere, and all of the references support the content. Also, it's not an attack page. The acknowledgement of a failed prophecy is not an attack on anyone. Wikipedia also has other similar pages: Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions, List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ, and 2012 phenomenon, to name a few. None of those pages are "attacks" on the fact that they are failed prophecies. Knowledge Battle 02:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , just to be clear, the rationale for deletion in this discussion isn't based on the "attack page" speedy deletion rationale which was appropriately declined. The page should not have been nominated for speedy deletion and certainly shouldn't have been labeled as an attack page. My AfD nominating rationale is based around WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   10:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The rewrite of the lede has fixed the neutrality problem, but the point of original synthesis remains. This article is a grab bag of loose points mostly based on primary sources; some of the content may be appropriate for articles on, e.g., the Gospel of Matthew, but without a good connecting source, we shouldn't have a separate article. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This has all the feel of an ATTACK article on Christianity, expressing the author's POV on issues that are a matter of interpretation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: as pure OR and SYNTHESIS -- this is not the 700 Club.  Quis separabit?  15:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as there's simply nothing to suggest fitting this more to an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I reject the view that this is original research, see the section in Criticism of the Bible on prophecies. Nor is this article sythesis, the author didn't reach these conclusions himself/herself, there is plenty of evidence that they have been reached, rightly or wrongly, by others. The article is certainly not neutral especially in its choice of title. The problem is that this list fails WP:Stand-alone lists (See also Manual of Style/Lead section.) in that it lacks adequate selection criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and thus fails to provide encyclopedic context, producing an indiscriminate list that therefore breaches the policy at WP:NOT. Were this topic not already adeqautely covered in Wikipedia, I might suggest that by renaming and adding adequate criteria, background information and sources for both, as well as proper sourcing in the text, the article might be salvaged; or given the scope of the infirmaties I might suggest WP:TNT; but delete is proper because it is also needlessly duplicative. (See WP:Content forking.)  No redirect is recommended because of the non-neutrality of the title. --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (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.