Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament 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 List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and no consensus on Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Petros471 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and Messianic prophecies of Jesus
WP:OR listcruft of links. There is no context, there is no soucing, and "fullfilled procephy" is subjective and not explained. It claims to be evidence "supporting the claim that Jesus has been promised by God to be born as a human."

The "Messianic prophecies of Jesus" is the exact same listcruft claiming "Many Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) contains certain Messianic prophecies of Jesus, or references that predict the coming of Jesus." No sources, no explanations, no context. It just has a list of vague subjective meanings of parts of the bible. Arbusto 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Per nom. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep of the latter These are all well-known examples of biblical verses which support the idea of the coming of Christ. All of these have been frequently interpreted and cited as examples of this.  So, rather than deleting it and doubting the obvious fact that "Many Christians believe that the Old Testament contains certain Messianic Prophecies of Jesus", let's find sources and improve it.  Excepting a bit of POV language, there is nothing incorrect or OR in this article.  None of the reasons given by the nominator are accepted reasons for deletion.  Find sources.  Explain.  Provide context.  At the very least add a template.  But for the love of Wikipedia, don't delete it. AdamBiswanger1 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has been in this poor state since 2002. In four years no one managed to find a source and contextualize the "list"? I'm not sold on "well-known" or even the validity of these examples. ---Arbusto 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it. Also, the point isn't that they're valid, but that they are commonly believed by Christians.  Also, I created it in July of this year, so you must be referring to the other list.  All of these have the potential to become like Isaiah 53, another article I created. AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The list was created in 2002 and the prophecies article, which is the same information, was created in July 2006. What I mean by valid is that they aren't contextualized and thus, a particular claim without a source could be incorrect. Reading some, I think that is the case. Arbusto 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The prophecies article is not the same information, because it contains detailed explanations each, whereas the other article merely lists them. What happened was this:  I created section headings for each of the examples, hoping to fill them in later, but an anon IP actually did to my delight.  I haven't had time to fully review this information being as busy as I am, but I plan to.  I am also confused by your claim that they are "without a context".  It is just a list of claims that Christians often cite as referring to Christ.  It's one of those situations in which the "no context" problem can be solved by fixing up the opening paragraph. AdamBiswanger1 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When you quote something you take it out of a larger work. That larger work is context referring to acts, premises, and events that give the quote meaning. Both articles are simply quotes without that larger meaning of what the quotes were centered on. Even if the article is deleted you can create a sandbox to improve it for reposting. And the articles are nearly identical, they both have examples about propechies of Jesus and use, say, Isiah 53, Psalms 22 and many others. Arbusto 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge Messianic prophecies of Jesus into List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. It may need cleaning up but it is still encyclopedic. --Tarret 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified original research. Leuko 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These verses are listed as messianic prophecies of Jesus on these sites:          AdamBiswanger1 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom. TJ Spyke 01:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the first, then keep the second as cornerstone of religion. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both as unsourced POV listcruft (Biblecruft?), with no objections to the use of this material in creating a properly sourced article on the same subject. Opabinia regalis 02:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for extremely clear OR -Markeer 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. Resolute 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both, WP:NOR, WP:V, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong (T 06:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies - much of it seems to be copyvio lifted from sites such as this one, and to the extent that the list has been modified or merged with other such lists, it constitutes OR. Keep Messianic prophecies of Jesus - the article is unsourced, but I find it unlikely that most of it is OR, and I think we can source it if someone is willing to try.  --Hyperbole 07:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and merge per Tarret's suggestion and Adam's comments. This topic is a well established concept in Christian theology and evangelical interpretation of the OT testament. I have added references to each of the scriptures quote in the Messianic prophecies of Jesus article to answer the nominator's concern. The links all go to either scholarly journals or published books where the authors deal with the messanic nature of the scripture. I have also added further reading sources as well as external links to skeptical and jewish analysis. The article now passes WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT. The article could use some tidying and expansion of skeptical and jewish views for NPOV concerns but those are not grounds for deletion. I would ask that all the delete voters take a look at the referenced and expanded version and possibly reconsider your vote. Agne 09:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Tarret wants to keep the list and delete the other, while Adam wants to delete the list and keep the other. Arbusto 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Tarret wants to keep the information from the one and merge it to the other. There is no contradiction here. AdamBiswanger1 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-read it. Tarret wants to "merge Messianic prophecies of Jesus into Arbusto 00:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When you merge, you are inncorporating the information each article in one consolidated article. It's all about keeping the information versus just deleting it.Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Because this is a bit unclear in that these two articles are grouped, I will summarize the voting so far. There are 8 "Delete" votes for "Messianic prophecies of Jesus", and 5 "Keep" votes so far. All have voted "Delete" for the first listed article. Hopefully this will help the closing admin. AdamBiswanger1 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. --Charlesknight 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's disappointing that only one editor voting "oppose" for Messianic prophecies has written more than one line. It's very frustrating to have sound logic combated with "Delete both per nom". AdamBiswanger1 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Kf4bdy  talk contribs 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and relist separately. This AFD is unnecessarily confusing, and should never have been a group nomination. I wonder how many of the people voting "delete both" have bothered to examine the second?  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment please list this as two seperate nominations --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I, and others disagree. Two articles on the same topic using nearly identical verses without context. Arbusto 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and relist separately per above. But for the record, Delete the first one per nom.  Keep the second article, as it is encyclopaedic, contains sources, and any problems with formatting or POV can be fixed by cleanup.  Ramsquire 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete first but Keep second.UberCryxic 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep articles make their subjectivity clear - it's not as if they are prosletysing tracts. Content is academically useful, though cleaning up would benefit. Blowmonkey 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keepand let a thousand edit wars bloom as to what was fortold and was the prophecy fulfilled.Edison 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. Edgecution 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and merge per Agne.    Looking at its current state, the second article seems to be in very good shape WRT WP:V and WP:NOR.    ---  The Bethling (Talk) 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the first; Comment on the second For List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, there is no uniform Christian position on what claim have been or are yet to be fulfilled, none of the references listed for this article claim that there is and it would be OR and POV to select one author's view of what's in and what's out. Moreover, all the claims of fulfillment presented in the article are quotes to the New Testament which (a) not all Christians agree is literally true; (b) is internally inconsistent (see Internal consistency and the Bible).  There are no claims of fulfillment advocated by numerous Christian groups from evident outside of the Bible -- especially eschatological harbingers. For Messianic prophecies of Jesus, the whole premise of the article is that "many Christians believe" but there is absolutely no reference to which denominations on each point and how "many" is "many" (see Avoid weasel words); unless this can be somehow corrected verifiably the whole article is no more than a collective set of authors' opinions that someone could claim yadda yadda yadda. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete 1st, Delete 2nd. The list is pointless. The latter article, while better, makes a grave mistake in using the generic "Christian" appelation, as there are so many diverse brands of Christianity that have existed.  The content could be revised a little to specify which Christians belief point x, but it would probably be best, IMO, to delete it outright and start from scratch again. Badbilltucker 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarifying note The "generic Christian appelation" is used in the exact context that the sources attached to the statements use them. Just as the "Jewish scholars" statements are used in the context of their sources. The authors of the "Christian sources" all identify themselves as Christian and present their interpretation of the messianic prophecy as Christian. Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment When was 'pointlessness' a criterion for deletion? There are hundreds of list articles with far less point than this; List of one time characters in The Simpsons would be a good example. These are foundational scriptures of a major religion. DJ Clayworth 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Both even the second article is a collection of Bible excerpts. The subject matter of these article is more a problem for theologians then Wikipedians, and is so sensitive that citng the wrong Bible can raise POV concerns.  I think it is best Wikipedia not treat here.-- danntm T C 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we not have these articles because the common wikipedian isn't interested in them? And by the way, if you want the second article to be more than just "a collection of Bible excerpts", add to it.  I would also add that it is not simply a collection of Bible verses.  Read through it and improve what you think needs fixing. AdamBiswanger1 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete the first, Weak Keep the second. The first is an incurable case of original research.  Who's to say what prophecies "Christians" consider fulfilled?  I find it inconceivable that there is any sort of concensus among Biblical scholars on this subject, and all we can offer with a list is the opinion of one or more editors, particularly without citations - and even with citations, well, I'm sure you could find a citation claiming some verse fulfills just about every prophecy.  The second article is better, as it's about a major theme in the Bible which is worthy of treatment, and is a fairly well-written article as well.  I also agree that these should have been listed seperately. -Elmer Clark 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both because there are no sources and no explanations for the ambiguity and subjectivity of the article. Wikipediarul e s2221 23:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: The second article has ample sources that all pass WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete First, Neutral on the second. The first seems to be OR, speculative and not of sufficient notability.  The second one seems better, though I'm not convinced its notable enough, however I'm not opposed to it either. --The Way 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete first and Keep second per Adam Biswanger, Elmer Clark et al. Pace Danntm, the second is not just a subject for theologians, it is also appears in historical works on the early Christian Church, and even if it were "just theological", that would be no reason to delete the article. I share Haeleth's concerns that the joint nomination is likely to result in ill-informed "delete both" votes (and I mean votes). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. These lists are mostly useless. Messianic prophecies are often used as arguments for christianity, but this can be discussed in bible prophecy. Bob A 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep While these are not cited, that's largely because they are well-known in Christian circles. It will be very easy to find references to back these up. How come we're allowed to make lists of characters that appear once in The Simpsons but not foundational scriptures of a major religion? DJ Clayworth 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A Simpson charcter can be WP:V and it is not POV. However, "fulfilled Old Testament prophecies" is POV and listcruft. Arbusto 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge The two articles will look better as a single article.Bagginator 14:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense: Merge what into what? It will still just be a list of Bible verses, and wikipedia is not a directory of Bible verses. --Arbusto 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources in the second put it in a clear context of it's relevancy to Christian thought and studies. Of course it can be expanded more but even in its current state the second article is far from being just a directory of Bible verses. Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both per Arbusto, Bob. Eusebeus 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since Wikipedia is not a concordance. The problem is that these assume the historical truth of both old and new testaments; they might have a place in a Christian encyclopaedia (if they were properly sourced), but not, I think, here. To be fair the second article is less bad than the list and could perhaps be saved, but I don't see that our coverage of Christian theology is lacking sufficiently to justify yet more subjects. Guy 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of coverage on Messianic prophecies in Christian Theology (which, if done right and in accordance to NPOV, NOR, etc would be larger then what the Biblical Prophecy, Christ and general Christian Theology articles would be able to accomdate). Messianic prophecies are a major component of Christian Theological thought and they direct relate to how Christianity relates to Judaism, Islam and even skeptical thought. There is quite a bit more that can be done with the second article but I would say the bulk of work already in there is worth saving so that this article can grow organically. Agne 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete first, Weak Delete second, which has some sourcing and more refined structure, but which seems to still lack the ability to be a verifiable survey of "Christian" theological thought, though if some future iteration were narrower in scope, it might solve some of these issues. -  Tewfik Talk 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per User:DJ Clayworth You'll find lists like this in the back of many Bibles.  The biggest failing of these articles is that they don't cite specific sources such as specific Bibles which have these lists.  Moreover, the organization of material considering prophecies could be regularized across the two articles.  However, these are not arguments for deletion.  These are arguments for improving and re-organizing the articles. --Richard 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep of both per Richard, DJ Clayworth et al. (No comment about merging as of this writing.) --Joe Sewell 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pedia-I 18:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Both, per Opabinia_regalis and others. WP:OR clearly states that a synthesis of other research to advance a position is against WP policy. And yes, I've read both articles and they belong in the same nom. SkerHawx 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete first as POV listcruft, keep second and source/expand it, because this is really a theme in Christian theology and there must be a lot of sources about it.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:04, 11 October 2006 (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.