Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

This poll is a blatantly bad-faith act. There is currently a pol at the article, asking whether it should be split in two or not; currently the vote is three for splitting, two for keeping the same, and we continue to have robust discussion about whether the article is policy compliant or should be changed. These are not grounds for deletion. Bikinibomb is upset because, after a period of dominating the discussion, new editors have joined in and his rants have become marginalized; he is just lashing out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sl, careful -- you sound like ME when my direction was AfD! I disagree with this AfD for the EXACT SAME REASON I disagreed with the other two (and yes, even I wanted to AfD this thing a few days ago).  But I don't think this is "bad-faith" unless the other ones were (which I think they were, but that's beside the point).  BikiniBomb has been following the most consistently sound methodology of any of us, and a citation hound like BB should be applauded, not relegated to "rant" status.  That said, the current glossary really should be split in two.  Even with all the effort I've done on my matrix approach,
 * similar concepts find different words between the two religions,
 * while similar words find different concepts.
 * If only ONE of those were occurring, it would be possible to keep it all together. But we keep finding examples of BOTH.  It's a lovely glossary -- lovely enough for two pages, don't you think?Tim (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sl - I've been disgusted by how this has all been handled, sure. That's part of the issue but not all of it. Non-notable terms with no article are being added, while other terms with an article are deemed not-notable with valid sources rejected in favor of OR, one by a consensus of editors from a single religion called upon by you, as based on misinformation about intended notability. From the start the article has been a platform for POV pushing and favor of OR instead of outside sources, and it is only getting worse, causing it to become a hotbed for personal attacks and threats of ArbCom between Tim and Lisa, not just involving myself. Perhaps an entirely fresh start is what is needed, if something like this is attempted again.


 * Aside from all that as stated, the article is no longer useful or relevant since Admin Jossi took control of it while still in the last AfD and the primary purpose has been changed. As HG suggested, focus should now be placed on improving Glossary of spirituality-related terms. -Bikinibomb (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay on topic -- to nobody in particular: Please use this page to vote, hopefully with reasons, on the AfD. Discussion of the article can be on article Talk. Discussion of how the AfD was submitted, etc., can be placed on this AfD's Talk page. Keep the page as tightly focused as possible for the sake of the closing admin. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How do we stay on topic with a clearly bad faith act? I've been on the record as wanting this whole thing gone and everything done in the individual pages, but I can't in good conscience support this AfD, because it's absolutely being done in bad faith.  When Kim closed the last one, she said that any new one within 7 days would be considered disruptive.  Well, Bikinibomb is being disruptive.  Is there an AfD process for users?  Because I'd support an AfD for Bikinibomb. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This means if the original page was restored and a new AfD was issued for that page, not this new one, since we know what this new one is and what the contents are, not what the one that was destroyed should be since it hasn't been recreated yet. This is a whole new article, not one for Messianic terms. I'll also remind that you said in Talk yesterday Sir Myles, I second your proposal (for deletion). There is no purpose for this article at all, and never has been. So apparently you would only be against deletion now since I'm for it. Which typifies the attitude you've had on that article, arguing just for the sake of it, and it is only worse now that Jossi is there to use admin powers to support you. That's a big problem with the article but not a primary reason for deletion since you said it yourself, we just don't need it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Kim said that in the context of the article as it was at the time.  And yes, I'm quite aware of what I aid yesterday.  I said it just above as well.  But it doesn't change the fact that allowing you to get away with this tantrum would be bad Wikipedia policy all around. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how I'm understanding it, Kim will have to clarify. As with your AfD based on just not liking Messianics because they are a deceptive bunch, other editors can determine their own reasons for or against. I also don't see this article developing much since there are hundreds of articles in existing term categories, but editors spend days debating things like figs and shituf. It seems more to be here just as a forum of debate and one-uppance, not a useful tool for readers that isn't existing already with Glossary of spirituality-related terms. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Along those lines, the This article was nominated for deletion tags should be removed from its Talk page since it's no longer the same article that was nominated before. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)