Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Messiah claimants


 * 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW (obvious consensus) and WP:SK (as the nominator proposes redirection, which does not require deletion). Note that the first !vote was from the nominator and so was not an independent endorsement. Andrew (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Messiah claimants
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Jewish Messiah Claimants has been nominated on the basis that the entry consists of "Original Research," with the content/inclusion of entries within this category being entirely subjective, with large areas of this article never being substantiated with citations,  with other areas of the entry having support from unreliable sources, with the entries in the list having adequate representation in pre-existing and well documented List of messiah claimants, with indications within talk that sections of this article have been copied verbatim (plagiarized) from a single outside source. That as "original research" this entry has failed to develop from inception in 2006 to a properly sourced article and thus is still classified as a "start" quality article. Recommendation therefore to;
 * Delete with redirection to List of messiah claimants which adequately and correctly reflects content within.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  03:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep With 36 references and a dozen books that directly address the subject of Jewish Messiah claimants, I'm not sure what more to look for. Compared to this one, List of messiah claimants is rather poorly written and sourced; if anything a reverse merge might be justified. Given that there are rather distinct differences between a potential Jewish Messiah and those of other faiths, the additional details that are provided in this article are specifically relevant. The article can use editing, restructuring and more thorough referencing, but the source material is already in the article. Issues with content should be dealt with in the article and have no bearing on the notability of the article itself. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -Of the 36, 7 are potentially plagerized, of the minutia within the many sections hardly any attribution exists with this entry failing to develop since 2006.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not original research as there is abundent scholarly literature discussing the topic. References supporting uncited paragraphs are readily available in the linked articles. Nominator should point out claimed unreliable sources, and either remove them or discuss them. If there are copyright violations, either remove them or paraphrase them. The "start" rating is not an argument for deletion; it is an argument to improve it or rerate it, or both. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -Start tells us that the entry "is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources," this entry has a bevy of editors since 2006 discussing how they theologically-interpret the subjective for over eight years.  We have a very verbose article that is essentially a research study of a topic for a variety of interested editors. (a theological debating society).   A simple list (which already exists) is an adequate representation. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Users &  and it is really surprising that the nominator makes sweeping assertions about it being "OR" -- when no OR is visible to the naked eye at all -- but does not even cite one case to back himself up. This article/list is unique to Jewish history it relates to historical failures stemming from the notion of a Jewish Messiah, so it makes no sense to merge it with another "general list". It is also the lead article for its parent category Category:Jewish Messiah claimants where many of the cases cited in the list are discussed at more length with more WP:V & WP:RS. That it has not been developed much over the years is no reason to delete it either. WP has been around for many years and editors have come and gone. There are relatively few good Judaic editors who stick around for a long time, so that the work that had been started should not be eradicated on the flimsiest of excuses of WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -I would say that many "Judaic editors," have approached this article from a theological stance, with many of the elements having to pass a theological-subjective debate for inclusion.      I am certain that this issue and concern extend to other (subsidiary) articles as well that were written by the same approach.     A definite distinction exists between theological interpretation and fact.     There will be many people on the keep side interested in their pursuit of theological debate, nevertheless discussions along those lines belong in a theological venue with a secular encyclopedia reserved for neutrality of fact. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this is a genuine copy & paste it should be discussed as a copyvio. At the moment there is plenty of material for a standalone article, and there are plenty of sources that focus on Jewish false messiahs alone (e.g. B.S. Hamburger's משיחי השקר ומתנגדיהם ). JFW &#124; T@lk  13:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As explained above, the article's content is notable, distinct, not original research, and thus eligible for its own article. If there are potentially plagiarized sections, that requires clean up and proper sourcing, not wholesale deletion. Avi (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep If the arguments raised above by the nominator as a justification for deletion are all correct (mainly that large sections are unsubstantiated or unreferenced), then those areas need to be substantiated and referenced. Overall the article can maybe be trimmed a bit, with some marginal claimants eventually removed, but not alltogether deleted. It needs work, as many WP entries in the area do, but it should not be deleted from WP. warshy (¥¥) 14:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -Most of the article needs to be substantiated by citations, to do so would result in a total gutting of the entry which in turn would be "assumed, falsely as vandalism" by the many editors engaged in "making things up as they go along." --Lfrankbalm (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)


 * Keep I agree with the keeps above. The article is notable and if there are issues, they need to be fixed and the article kept. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SNOW keep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep I don't see how religious topics can or should be discussed from an entirely secular stance. That's like saying that geographic subjects shouldn't be discussed from a geological stance. Obviously all POVs should be represented, and if there are not references to whatever secular-oriented sources might exist on the subject, they should be added.  DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Religious topics and minutia are by nature subject to interpretation, geographic topics are definitive, --Lfrankbalm (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy keep, notable, seems not to be original research, referenced. Definitely should be kept. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:58, 31 October 2014 (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.