Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormonism and Judaism

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

I believe that the whole premace of this article is original research. PDXblazers 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note the AfD template was not added to the page by nominator, I have now added it

• Keep - This is an old article and although it could do with references it does appear to have had a lot of editors, and the talk page suggests a section was removed for being original research. This suggests that most contributors do not consider the whole article original research. Thryduulf 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - The page may be based on original research done by Joseph Smith, but that's part of the argument. I added a lot of the Jewish information, and it was taken from other Wikipedia articles and other disparate sources. The comparison section is certainly not original research. Can't speak about the Mormon doctrine section. FiveRings 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (oh, and for some strange reason a lot of the external references were moved to the bottom of the page. Not sure why, and I don't agree with the reformatting).
• Keep. Mormon theology claims a continuity with Judaism that goes beyond that of other Christian denominations (see Aaronic Priesthood) and this article should cover that. However, the material that talks about each religion separately should go. Gazpacho 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• MERGE & REDIRECT While it does smack of original research, the information should be condensed into a section on the main Mormonism article either something dealing with historical origins/continuity or doctrine. Subject doesn't deserve its own article. Needs citations, by the way. —ExplorerCDT 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the Mormonism article is already quite long and imho doesn't need any more sections adding to it. Thryduulf 10:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's not really an excuse, and if it is, it is a poor one. —ExplorerCDT 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very interesting comparison of the two. Mugaliens 15:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment Interesting doesn't make it encyclopedic. It violates WP:NOR. PDXblazers 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Many instances of original research (more like wild speculation) have been removed in the history of this article. If there are specific instances that you still find objectionable, why not address those via the normal editing process. FiveRings 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I happened to be interested in this very topic, and it was the second hit in Google. The introductory paragraphs are good. Any problems with the article can be dealt with in the normal editing process. Wasted Time R 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is an obvious keep. W/o casting aspersions in the direction of the nominator, this is among the more frivolous nominations I've ever come across. I have to agree with 5Rings, and point out [as I seem to find myself doing more and more of late], that WP:AFD is not the proper way to resolve disputes, and in this case seems almost like an effort to push a POV rather than to protect us all from WP:NOR. Tomer^talk 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the insinuation. Do we often find comparison articles in an encyclopedia? The answer is no. The article could be dogs and cats, and I would have the same feeling. PDXblazers 00:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefaced my comments deliberately enough to clarify that I was not making any insinuations. Regarding your question, "yes". cf., e.g., Judaism and Christianity. Cheers, Tomer^talk 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dogs don't claim doctrinal descent from, and spiritual association with, cats. FiveRings 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment after speaking with other Wikipedians regarding the matter and the discussion on this page, I am comfortable withdrawing this as a nomination for deletion. PDXblazers 21:28, 6 September 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.