Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of God vs. Son of Man


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Son of God vs. Son of Man

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article appears to be original research. The only source is the bible. This article was PROD'ed but the template was removed by the author without addressing concerns. Jschnur (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment this article was just created within the past day or two, so an AfD is probably premature. While I agree that in its current state the article only references primary sources, the topic is clearly notable.  Consider Googling for "Son of God" "Son of Man", e.g. this Google News search, which shows that the terms frequently occur together in RS discussions of Christianity. I wonder if there might be a better place to merge/redirect this, such as somewhere within Christology perhaps. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The way to fix things would be to fix the Son of Man article. As is that article is pretty hopeless. See my comment of a year or two ago Talk:Son_of_man. Both Son of God and Son of Man are notable but the intersection does not deserve a separate article. The solution will be to make a solid Son of man (Christianity) page, and have an informed comparison in a section there. I am not working on those any more, but that is the way to fix it. And it should be fixed by someone rational, not this group of puppets. History2007 (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the easy way to see how far off the attempt was is that they missed the most important item: "unlike the title Son of God, proclamation of Son of man has never been an article of faith in Christianity". That is the key issue, which I have now added to the lede there as well as the Comparison to Son of God section there. And while the puppets seem to feel that they know it all, as the references in the Son of man (Christianity) now state: "The interpretation of the use of 'the Son of man' in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars." And as can be seen from the references there, the material in the Afd-ed article is way, way off the mark and completely incorrect. I just have one more section in the Son of man (Christianity) page to touch up now (the NT passages) but the comparison is done. There is no need for this article. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Indeed, quite original. There is no record of a King of Israel named Immanuel or Immanual, also not in the Gospel of Matthew; the last person who might be considered to have been King of Israel was Antigonus II Mattathias, who died 37 BC and can hardly have been the father of Jesus. Perhaps the author of the article directly received a revelation from a Higher Power; an alternative, more mundane explanation is a rich imagination. In any case, the content is unsalvageable. Although the two terms often occur together in Christological texts (they also appear together in both of our articles Son of God and Son of man), an article with this title does not make sense unless we have reliable sources that discuss these terms as being in opposition. --Lambiam 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why then is it Gospel that Jesus was born King of the Jews?
 * Comment - I think if the article were renamed Son of God and Son of Man and the info didn't include Original Research, there seems to be a WP:GNG basis to keep such a topic. Source material may include: "The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God, The "One like a Son of Man" Becomes the "Son of God", The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Give the article time to become great. Wikipedia is not about uploading finished articles. It's about people working on them over time. Also, Oral Roberts book is a secondary source, and Matthew includes things he did not witness himself, and so is a secondary source to maybe a large extent. I think comparing the terms Son of Man and Son of God in one article is a good idea. When I Googled the subject, there are some non-Wikipedia hits. I contributed to the article. I added the Oral Roberts quote because it helps promote understanding. Also, the article is new and will improve if given time. Experts will eventually find it and work on it. A1812pm (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oral Roberts is self-published and thus not a reliable source. Also, the text quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the article and thus is not even a source at all. It would serve fine as a primary source for the claim that at least some people, when they were young, liked and believed in Jesus while not yet believing in God. --Lambiam 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems to a certain extent redundant with Son of man and Son of God and the content might be merged into one or the other of those, but I'm willing to wait a few days if as people say it will be improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is meant to be about the dual substance of Christ (i.e. divine vs. human), then it is redundant with Person of Christ. I agree with Jclemens that the AfD nomination may have been premature. Spt172012 is a new editor and just needs a little guidance with regard to Wikipedia policies. I think he's trying to make a positive contribution to the encyclopaedia, and needs more than two days to do so. As for the article, I don't think it should be merged, because it's all original research. I don't think it should be redirected, because the title is too arbitrary. Do you think userfication would be a good option? It would give the editor time to learn about policies like WP:OR, read existing articles related to the topic, and to better structure his work before he releases it into the wild. Braincricket (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I put the initial tags on the article for notability and sourcing. I really like the userfication idea that Braincricket brought up.  I think the creator should take the content to his/her userpage and work on it more there and then submit it for AfC to get more guidance and advice. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The content and the approach used by these multiple accounts fail WP:Competence in a New York minute. Pretty confused and irrational edits... And they are making new sock puppet accounts every few hours. This user shows low rationality in edits and even less respect for policy. No salvation in sight here. History2007 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at the edit history for the page, I'm worried that their may be a sock puppet problem. Since the article was created 3 days ago, there have been 8 brand new accounts that have worked on it, and only it. I sent a message to the page creator, assuming good faith, to ask if the user is editing on the different accounts. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading that. I shouldn't care less what you're rules are, because trying to find secondary sources wasted my time. Keep the article or not. I think there's a comparable difference between the two terms, and I do not intend to use this account again, because what would there be to do with it? Criticise new articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kxrt (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Kxrt is a sock puppet. This user has no respect for policy. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nominator Comment: Sadly, AdventurousSquirrel is undoubtedly right. Look at the contributions of the following single purpose accounts, all created in the last few days and the only significant contributors to this article. The author is dishonestly trying to make his article look like a collaborative effort.
 * Spt172012 (talk | contribs),
 * Shrpics1812 (talk | contribs),


 * Joewey (talk | contribs),


 * A1812pm (talk | (contribs),


 * A2drysorsithnk (talk | contribs),


 * Someecrefs (talk | contribs),


 * Greataveragewriter (talk | contribs),


 * Zsubti (talk | contribs).


 * It's the worst and most blatant sockpuppetry I've seen. But the worst thing about this article is its complete failure at WP:NPOV. As an encyclopaedic article it is abysmal. If I were a Buddhist or Muslim I would see this article as nothing more than proselytising. As a Christian I would see it as fringe theology unworthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Jschnur (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely add Kxrt (talk •contribs) to the list. Jschnur (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sockpuppets for sure. Given that sockpuppetry is an inherently deceitful activity says something here. The next puppet account they start should probably be called "Son of Sockpuppet"... History2007 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete for sure, for sure. And look out for spill over of the junk from here to elsewhere, e.g. Person of Christ. Looks like a new account was created as Aebvtu to ship out the half-baked thoughts here elsewhere. The edits are pretty confused about the subject anyway. These accounts need to have a CU look, then be zapped altogether. History2007 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can not be bothered to start a SPI, but someone please do it. This is blatant. Note how one puppet retired another. This is just disruptive and "less than upfront" editing with so many puppets obviously created to fool the system - yet so sloppy both in content creation as well as in attempts at concealment via puppet creation. History2007 (talk)


 * Now the use attempted to delete the Afd page itself! History2007 (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Puppets have been indef blocked The key puppet which retired the others hasindef blocked now. So this may be an academic exercise to get that user to do anything. But their irrational behavior got me upset enough that I will now clean up the Son of man article anyway, and add a comparison to Son of God, so it will be done right. Did not want to work on it. Yet.... History2007 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I have now finished the Comparison to Son of God section in the Son of man (Christianity) article with proper WP:RS sources and explained teh Christological issues. And as stated above, near the top, they show the content in this Afd-ed article to be totally incorrect, and pure WP:OR. There is no need for this article. History2007 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the article wasn't original research written by an army of sockpuppets, it would be redundant with Son of man (Christianity), Person of Christ, etc. There's nothing worth saving. Braincricket (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yea I'll go ahead and change my userfication suggestion to a vote for deletion. Looks like the user won't be capable of turning it into anything encyclopedia worthy. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2012 (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.