Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffering servant as Israel


 * 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 as original synthesis. El_C 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Suffering servant as Israel
This article was up for AfD last month, but was withdrawn. see Articles for deletion/Instances in which isaiah uses the word servant to mean israel (the page ahs been moved since. You can read the page creator's reason for making this article. It is clearly a POV fork. If anything, a page on biblical prophecy should cover multiple POVs, instead of creating individual pages for the Jewish POV to respond to Christian claims (and then do we need to create individual pages for Muslim POV, scholarly POV, atheist, hindu, etc? of course not.) On top ot that, this article violates WP:NOT a primary source. The vast majority of the page is text copied out of the bible, mixed in with unsourced interpretations and WP:OR. Fails the big three policy points. Andrew c 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete, fails all major policy tests, as well as being poorly formatted and written. Vizjim 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above comments. Strong delete   Emeraude 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork, original synthesis in defense of POV, poor writing. Gazpacho 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. Joyous! | Talk 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. Alba 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   -- ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV fork. Perhaps some content (NPOvified and formatted) may be relevant in Judaism's view of Jesus. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. The Bible is a source of such controversy and multiplicity of perspectives that generally speaking, an editor's presentation of his or her own interpretation of the Bible is OR. Interpretations need to come from notable religious or academic scholars. This article strings together a series of Biblical verses and claims they form a connected pattern. Such a claim requires sourcing. --Shirahadasha 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV is unavoidable. Bible criticism too sensitive a subject - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom.   ''Em-jay-es  05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Humus Sapiens, and Shirahadasha. However, disagree with Crzussian in that well sourced relevant articles about Bible criticism are doable. This is not one of them. JoshuaZ 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with JoshuaZ that "well sourced relevant articles about Bible criticism are doable" (emphasis added). Maintain that articles containing Bible criticism are virutally impossible to unPOV. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Not only are there numerous aforementioned policy nominations, but there is a unanimous (as of now) consensus for delete. Valley2city 22:38, 12 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.