Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (2)


 * 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 Closed, page no longer exists as submitted to Articles for deletion. The page has had both the name and contents totally changed since the start of this afd. Without prejudice towards a new afd once there's actually consensus on what the page is supposed to say, and what the contents should be. Any new nomination within 7 days should be considered disruptive. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

as per recommendation of previous AfD, re-listing this on the basis of reluctance of involved editors to address the numerous NPOV and OR violations in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Other related AfDs: Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms (deleted: Violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions.)

'''Whoever closes this AfD, please delete all associated article redirects as well... List of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, List of Christian and Jewish terms, List of Jewish and Christian terms, Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms, Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, Glossary of Lisa's terms and by the time this closes, 10 more.''' Avruch talk 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom, and merge any useful material to the Messianic Judaism article. I tried responding to the previous AfD's recommendation, but there is no willingness to address these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep for now I think this AfD is premature. I voted to delete in the prior AfD, but the problem right now is unrestricted edit and move warring, which I'm disappointed to say has not been slowed down by the presence of an involved administrator. The issue is that a couple of the editors make contentious redirects, moves, edits blah blah and then revert endlessly without discussing it. Personally, I prefer the list version - but I think a more deliberate approach to this topic is required and this nom is clearly not moving towards that end. Avruch talk 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, if none of the involved editors want to try to improve the article... Avruch talk 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We wanted to. Unfortunately improvement here boils down to shrieking about Messianic Judaism and Judaism sitting side by side. Maybe if we title the MJ column "Fake Jew" and put a little picture of a Messianic Jew sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on, with an Orthodox Jew in black rapping his knuckles with a ruler it might satisfy Lisa and we can all go home, what do you think? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This article is inappropriate on the face of it. The vast amount of material written about both religions means that even sourced statements will be cherry-picked in order to further the personal agendas of the editors.  Virtually all of the topics listed in this article have articles of their own.  Those articles are the correct place to get information on the subject.  This article seems to be an end-run around the full articles for OR and POV purposes. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment In several cases where I've used statements from main articles like Bible you've removed them and replaced them with your own unsourced views because you didn't like what they said, thus you have been one of the main problems regarding any "end-run around" issues, then asking for deletion on claims that is taking place. Ironic and fascinating to watch. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The only way to construct such a glossary would be a violation of WP:NOR. RJC Talk 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and maybe also merge to the Interfaith article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsure with qualifications. I appreciate and share the concerns that this article violates WP:NOR. However, I can see the value and legitimacy of a glossary to accompany, or as a duaghter article of, the article on Judeo-Christian. I feel very strongly that this should not be an instrument to further inter-faith dialogue (see WP:NOT) although of course we should have articles describing interfaith organizations. I also think that insofar as this may serve as a part of or daughter article to Judeo-Christian, compliance with NPOV requires that we distinguish between notable and fringe views. Notable views should be included, fringe views, not. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it is notable because it is a fringe, since it is the only religious group that claims to be Jewish and believe in Jesus. Another, because it has been described as one of the biggest threats to Judaism today. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * comment: this article pushes the "glossary" definition. It is, in fact, attempting to be a comparative discussion of Christianity and Judaism, and should be treated as a sub-article of that. Our Category:Glossaries is a strange animal, falling between Category:Lists and actual articles. I have no opinion on this case in particular, but it certainly highlights a larger problem. What is the difference between a glossary and a list? Case in point, Portal:Contents/List of glossaries lists to articles titled "glossary" and "list" indiscriminately. We need some sort of guideline on this. thanks, dab (𒁳) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. The article cannot rid itself of a perpetual vandal, and now is grossly misleading.  Christianity and Judaism are two different religions.  Having undifferentiated glossary entries on the same page is misleading.  Wikipedia can have a Christian glossary page and a Judaism glossary page, but putting them on the same page without a tabular separation grossly violates NPOV by imposing the editor's selected POV for one religion instead of another.Tim (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Please step over my pool of vomit on the way out, thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the creator of the article has, himself, voted Strong Delete, can we simply do a speedy deletion and be done with this? None of the work done on this article need be wasted. Editors can simply move their material to the appropriate articles, since almost every entry in this one has a full Wikipedia article. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the genuine article that I vote to delete, but your vandalism of it. You've taken something with NPOV and blended Judaism and Christianity together in a way that only Messianics can do.  I cannot support the blending of Judaism and Christianity since that violates synthesis.  If you won't be banned, and the vandalism can't be stopped, then your vandalism should be deleted.  That's my vote.Tim (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Query: Which version of the article are we talking about? It now redirects to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms which I find less objectionable than the original "compare and contrast" tabular form that had, in my opinion, massive undue weight, POV and OR problems. In the previous AfD, I had argued that the article should be combined with Messianic Jewish theology but a sister glossary article is about as good. --agr (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Tim changed the name of the article to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms out of pique when Jossi and I changed the format of the article to a list. Of course, it isn't a glossary of Messianic terms.  It's simply an undifferentiated list of terms used in either Christianity, Judaism, or both.  Jossi then began adding the intro paragraphs from the articles in question into this one.  Since it adds nothing to the articles from which the intros are being pulled, my view is that the whole article should be deleted.  Tim and Bikinibomb are intent on changing it back to the tabular form, and if this AfD fails, they will certainly do so. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No I think I said in the last AfD keep and take out of table format, and that if it was in regular section/paragraph format it probably wouldn't have been under such scrutiny. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then Delete, sadly. We've done the experiment and I think it's clear that a Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms is going to be an endless source of policy violations. I have no objection to a Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms or to Tim or whoever creating a Christian-Jewish term sheet in their User space to suggest good practice to editors, with future use open to later evaluation.--agr (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obituary
 * With sad affections we announce Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic Terms died today at the hands of it's parents, sisters and brothers , cousins , nieces and nephews.
 * It's young life had grown in torment and agony to a frail stature of 94 terms . It had no descendant children of it's own . It is survived by 138 internal forefather links, 135 external foremother cite references.
 * Cause of death, violent inhumane execution , preceded by slaughterous tortures and vehement sufferings.
 * Services for the deceaesed will be held at the mass grave site of the saints and innocents . All are welcome to attend the vigil of the 3rd night watch to reflect upon the life and death of a lost hope, prayer and lamentations.
 * The family request instead of flowers, that donations be made to charitable organizations to which this young article was born for ............ Pilotwingz (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (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.