Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

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 of the debate was KEEP. If the NPOV problems cannot be solved, it can be brought back here. -Splash^talk 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Article does not conform to the Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is not a scientific point of view that these events are prophesied, and an argument can be made that the article suggests that these prophesies and their results are seen as cause and effect, or having a pro-Christian bias. Tried to put an NPOV boilerplate at the top of the page, but a comment attached to a revert edit suggested I recommend for deletion.

• Keep there are a few POV entries (ie the Pat Robertson one) however many of them are verifiable Christian prophesies that failed.Gateman1997 19:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep could use some cleanup and expansion. To be honest, I really don't follow the argument of the nominator- that is, I don't understand it. --Krich (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though a copy-edit is in order. Anville 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is formulated in a POV way in how nearly every term on the page is defined. The result is an article that would be more accurately titled Some formal and informal predictions and guesses and statements of opinion made by some people who might have been associated with Christianity either by themselves or by being characterized as such by someone else. The inclusion of "prophecies" by individuals who specifically claim that they are not making prophecies (Hal Lindsey for example) is just one case of this. Dalf | Talk 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To make my objection clearer, the article’s title is in conflict with its content. The inclusion of any cult, splinter sect, or other group at all associated with Christianity is not what the average reader is going to think they are coming to read about when they see the phrase ‘’Christian Prophecy’’. Most people expect that this term is going to apply to ‘’’biblical prophecy’’’, or at the very minimum conform to some academic standard of what is and what is not (A) Christian and (B) A prophecy. The primary author of this article has stated on the talk page that pretty much any statement of opinion about the future by anyone who says that are Christian or any member of a religion derived form Christianity (even if the person also say they are not making prophecy) is worthy of inclusion.

I disagree. When I came here I was expecting any prophesy made by Christian leaders since the Old testament... and that's what has been placed here.Gateman1997 22:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

comment Who is the arbiter of who is a Real Christian or not? I didn't read through every single link on the page, but the several of which I did appear to be statements made by people who professed to be christian. I think that pretty much anyone who professes to be a christian, and has Jesus Christ somewhere in their doctrinal belief system in some form or fashion is indeed a christian. If someone is listed where an argument can be made that no one considers them even a fringe christian, that argument should be played out in editing the article. --Krich (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem comes in when including predictions which got the people who made them labled heritics by the church of their day. Or by groups that even the author of the article charcterizes as cults. I understand the argument that anyone who wants to be called X should be allowed to be called X but at the same time others who also call themselves X may not want to be grouped with the others. In this case considering what the general populas will anticipate when encounted with X is important. A real example is the use of Islamic and Islamist on wikipedia inorder to maintain NPOV. Dalf | Talk 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I take your point - however, whether or not some members of group X (christians) like it when others with different doctrinal beliefs identify themselves as christians doesn't matter. One person's "sect" or "cult" is another person's Truth. If a person or group makes a religiously-based prediction of the future, and they self-identify as christians - I don't see how they could be excluded from this article. Some entries perhaps should be removed, others edited. However, again, I feel these issues are best worked out in discussion at the article itself, not at a deletion vote. Yes, the article has flaws... it should be fixed, not deleted (in my opinion, of course). Thanks, --Krich (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as you like, so long as by doing so you are not under the illusion that we are somehow avoiding decideing "what christianity is or is not" by doing so. Either way you step on someone. I do agree that a lot of the content of the article is worht keeping, I just thinking a more NPOV title would be approprate. A title that would give the article somewhat less vauge and less offensive context. Regards, Dalf | Talk 09:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge the "christian" aspect of these prophecies is minimal, better to merge these with some other more general page about unfulfilled prophecies Zzzzz 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

not "christian?" Sez who? --Krich (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: very much POV concentrated on recent era in the US. Almost ignores the whole history of Christianity. Since the article exists for over year I do not see much of probability to get better. Pavel Vozenilek 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can't follow the nominator's argument either.Tommstein 06:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The nomination is a bit, rough but the fact that the critera for inclusion on the page is not acceptable rigiorus or NPOV is pretty easy to understand. I think an article about the history of predictions of christs return (or the end of the earth) is worthwhile, I do not think the current title is approprate for it however. Dalf | Talk 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. POV is only a basis for deletion if the problem cannot be corrected within the article. Nominator makes no claim that this is the case. Durova 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I can see how some may want to interpret this article as non-NPOV (as any religiously themed article invariably is by some), fundamentally the article is simply a collection of facts and makes no attempt to lend interpretation to the failed prophecies (nor should it) and therefore is relatively immune to POV encroachment. Although I think that all the claims should be properly documented as it could be very easy to insert out of context statements and complete fabrications. The topic is worthy of an article and any POV issues within the ariticle can be corrected within the article (eg. inclusion of a broader Christian history). mhunter 07:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and NPOV in my view (per Hunter). Needs a clean up and perhaps a change of title, unfulfilled ambiguously connotes both failed (as the article means) or not yet come to pass, but still may such as a prediction that the Dallas Cowboys may win the 2006 Superbowl. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Carlossuarez46 on that.Tommstein 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I suspect the nomination for deletion has more to do with the nominator's POV than any perceived POV in the timeline. These prophesies were made and didn't pan out. That's historical fact.
• Keep. As the original author of the article I naturally want it to stay. I was inspired to create this article by the Elizabeth Barton article which appeared on 23 September 2004 on the "Wikipedia's new articles" section of the front page. I then realised that many people within the Christian church have prophesied all sorts of things that have not come to pass, and that it would be important to have a record of it. I am an evangelical Christian myself (see my user page) and I do not find it POV to have a record of wrongs from the Christian church that I am part of. In fact, I think it is actually of great service to the church for this page to exist. I need to point out that Dalf and I have discussed this article on its talk page and we have very different opinions as to what is defined here. Dalf takes the pov that prophecies by Jehovah's Witnesses (for example) shouldn't be included since he does not regard the JWs as part of the Christian Faith. I actually agree with this sentiment, being the conservative evangelical that I am - but because this is an encyclopedia, people who have made specific prophecies as part of the "visible" church should be included here. Putting Pat Robertson here would only be pov if he had made some vague opinion about Bush winning by a landslide and for others to descide that it was a prophecy. The fact is that Pat DID in fact tell his television audience that God had given him the message that W would win by a landslide - so his inclusion in the article cannot be pov since his actually did make a prophecy and it did not come to pass. A change in title is okay, but needs to be discussed. If the title is misleading, then surely the opening paragraphs make it clear what it is about. --One Salient Oversight 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is awesome! Of course from many perspectives this might be condsidered biased, I think we can easily get around that with a note of possible bias. This is great information.
• Keep; many items need revision for clarity (I didn't understand the 1981 Oral Roberts thing, was it unforfilled or not?) but this is a useful collection of information. Sunnan 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1981, Oral Roberts had a vision of a 900ft tall Jesus who told him to build the "City of Faith Medical Center" which would be some wonderful Christian medical research institute that would bring glory to God etc etc etc but it went belly up about 10-12 years later due to financial problems.--One Salient Oversight 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep valuable contribution re history of religion, unavailable in other encyclopedias 70.132.31.200 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 70.132.31.200. PatrickA 10:43, 31 December 2005 (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.