Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and protect from recreation. --Coredesat 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled

Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

According to the records for Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled:-

  • 20:38, 30 April 2007: JLMarais created it.
  • 20:40, 30 April 2007: Fang Aili deleted it "Proselyzation; WP:NOT a soapbox"
  • 21:46, 30 April 2007: JLMarais re-created it.
  • 21:52, 30 April 2007: ArchStanton69 noticed that it had been re-created and tagged it for speedy delete "re-created article".
  • 21:53, 30 April 2007: Anthony Appleyard saw it in the speedy-deletion list and deleted it.
  • 22:30, 30 April 2007: JLMarais objected to the redeletion.

Anthony Appleyard 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete again. This article is written with a significant biblical inerrancy POV, and treats a lot of its content as fact rather than religious belief. A NPOV and more complete treatment already exists at Bible prophecy. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Perhaps there should be a new cleanup template "Subjectify" or "Beliefify" - basically saying to change all statements of facts to statements of opinion, belief, speculation, or conjecture. --Remi 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and, given the recreation history, salt. This is nothing more than a POV fork of Bible prophecy. Serpent's Choice 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant OR. Someguy1221 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: If this was OR citations would not be possible this is most definitely based on huge amounts of prior research. In terms of 'proselyzation' this would not be a relevant complaint if each item in the article is biblically quotable and historically or scientifically verifiable with acceptable citations. If bias is shown, please highlight it to me to allow me to correct it. In this article a critically important balance is to be introduced to other WikiPedia content that suggests that prophecy is largely a fallacy and superstition. I have done significant research on this topic and I can present an informed view that many people are not aware of. If any of the prophetic fulfilments covered are mentioned elsewhere on another article I would gladly remove it. It seems that there is some intolerance over this subject, but I sincerely hope that is not the case. Note that the recreation of the article was not malicious but just due not being fully informed about how article deletions work. I hope to develop this article to its full potential with your cooperation and that of the community. Regards. JLMarais 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not attributed, POV, OR. It is not "intolerance" to expect any article on Wikipedia to be written with a neutral point of view. It is not "intolerance" to expect attribution from non-trivial third parties. It is not "intolerance" to reject original research. --Charlene 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt Due to it being original research and a POV fork. Salt due to history of recreates. --RaiderAspect 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Whilst I personally agree with the current content of this article - this is not the place for coverage of this issue in these terms. I also find myself agreeing with the other editors here that this is intrinsically POV - that is from the perspective of this community. Whether something is biblically provable will never be sufficient grounds for remaining here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: What would you prefer should be listed under the link Israelology — Prophecies concerning Israel, the nation, the people, and the man? Do you prefer it being empty, as it was before I added this content? What would be valid content for that prophecy classification? ...anything without proof so that the reader would at all cost not be inclined to change his/her mind about prophecy? Why is the presentation of proof the problem? Is that the problem? Should I provide more credible proof? Why was Evidence of prophecy allowed in a different article? You may want to roll back my changes there as well to see how negatively portrayed the content was. I'm surprised (and originally impressed) that the changes even remained there for a while. Please explain since I'm trying to maintain my view of how this is a well maintained collection of information and how I'm breaching the code (please refer me to the editorial rule in question). "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - consider that this is not even a presentation of future events, but predicted, verifiable, historic events.
  • Delete and salt - this is hopelessly non-neutral OR and will never be anything but. Who says these "prophecies are beyond reproach"? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fundamentalist POV-pushing; if the creator wants to save the work they've put into this article, I'm sure Aschlafly would manage to find a home for it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bible isnt factual by any means and wiki shouldnt be a place to interpret religious predictions made in various works. None of the "proof citations" can be directly traced to the prophecies Corpx 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not Sunday school. Let's avoid this kind of pseudo-scholarship that is basically a sermon. Such "prophecies" often end with Christians "proving" Jesus' arrival and Jews "proving" that Christianity is false. Guilty of WP:NEO and WP:OR. IZAK 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & Salt This is definitely a textbook example of POV pushing and original research. The entire article is open to interpretation, which is clearly what the editor has done. He has taken passages from the Bible that supposedly foreshadow present day events and shown, in his opinion, how those prophecies have been fulfilled. How can any of the information in this article be atrributed to any reliable secondary sources? It can't. I wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the article and believe it should be deleted and protected so that it will never be recreated. --Cyrus Andiron 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, weakly, as written. There is a vast literature on this subject, and I am certain that a worthwhile article could be written on the topic. It should not present controversial issues of exegesis or historical interpretation (e.g. that the Zionist regime in Palestine represents fulfilment of Biblical prophecy) as accepted facts. But any worthwhile article ought to be recreated from scratch, and appear under a NPOV title. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The 'Zionist regime in Palestine'? If we're talking NPOV that'd be 'Israel' then would it? Nick mallory 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. In the current context, "Israel" would be ambiguous. The unanimous teaching of the Christian churches for 1800 years was that the body of Christian believers is the new Israel of God, and that it has replaced the Jewish faith. In the 19th century, this traditional tenet was challenged, and the new doctrine became standard among end times prophecy buffs. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pointing out anything but a fact of geography. The country has a name and that name is Israel. Nick mallory 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • neutral I am not certain that the article has no merit. The problem is that there must be a secondary source that claim that a particular prophecy has been fulfilled. Quoting from the primary source is clearly WP:OR. I am not certain that this can be done. Jon513 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my original speedy delete reasoning. --Fang Aili talk 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zetawoof. Like Jon513, I am not sure that this article has no merit... (here I managed to work up a detailed argument about a possible page on Biblical prophecy without noticing that such a page exists.). This material is covered better and without OR and POV by Biblical prophecy. bikeable (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, irreparably violates WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as being way afoul of WP:OR and being rather POV as well. Unless this is impeccably sourced in some way, in which case I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As a Christian, I'm going with Strong Delete, maybe a merge, as it is (admittedly) extremely POV. There is nothing in this article that can't be covered in Biblical prophecy, and eschatology, while it has a few theories within Christianity, has an annoying habit to tend toward much speculation about The End. (OK, that may seem like a non-sequitur, but biblical prophecy and eschatology very much go hand in hand.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment May also be an attempt to counter, in some fashion, Unfilfilled historical predictions by Christians. No vote at this point though. Confusing Manifestation 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think therein lies a paradox. I'm pretty sure that the article you suggest wouldn't survive an AfD, if only on the grounds that it would be a case of bringing one long-lasting holy cold war (for lack of a better term) to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete though a proper article on the subject might be appropriate. But not one with the POV "In this article some prophecies are be listed that are beyond reproach." DGG 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete speculative original research. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if sourcing and WP:OR issues could be addressed, this list-type approach is inherently POV. The issues are too complex to be legitimately presentable in a list. There are different POVs on what the various prophecies meant, or whether particular historical events corresponded to them. An article-type format is necessary for any serious, legitimate, WP:NPOV article on such an issue. A more neutral title is needed as well. --Shirahadasha 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - While an article is under construction it is difficult to determine what the end result will look like. This is an entirely different article from Bible Prophecy. Yes, it is a POV article, but that events relating to the formation of the modern state of Israel are a fulfilment of prophecy is a widely held view in certain Christian circles. I would like to see the creator being allowed to develop his article. I suspect that the addition of a brief sceptical statement to the introduction such as 'Certain Christians claim that the following are examples of prohecy fulfilled in modern times' would be sufficient to redeem it. It is not original research, as I have seen views of this kind in works such as Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, a book with whose views I profoundly disagree - but it exists. However, a great deal of theological speculation has been undertaken into escatology, and biblical prophecy of the end of the world and the prophesied Second Coming of Christ. There is no reason why such material should not be reflected in WP. I would further add that it is extremely bad form for admins to delete new articles before their authors have had a chance to complete writing them. I speak as one who has suffered from that, before I descovered the In use and
On Wikipedia, Under Construction may refer to articles actively undergoing construction.

My page may refer to:

tags. Peterkingiron 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at what there is out there already, the more I think this is an article dealing with serious issues, which some Christians believe. I have looked at Christian eschatology, Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians, Summary of Christian eschatological differences, and End times. I can find nothing else that deals with the subject matter of the article, I therefore upgrade my view to Strong Keep. In passing, I would mention that End times is an incomplete article that appears to he paralleling eschatology: that might well be a candidate for AFD. This one should not be. Perhaps the response to the immediate deletion should have been to ask for a deletion review, or to contact the admin responsible to ask him to reverse his actions and give the author time to complete the article. However it should not be an admin's job to delete new articles that (except obvious spam), just because they disagree with them. The PROD and AFD procedures are a much better way of resolving these disputes. Perhaps the admin responsible should be disciplined (or have admin rights removed). Peterkingiron 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete.--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: Note POV improvements to page as well as declaring it as 'under construction'. Added a TODO list which should address OR concerns: Get citations about the historic & prophetic value of the Bible - possibly from "Bible Evidences Authority Etc" section at `The World's Largest Online Library`, Questia. There are 8 books listed and 28 journal articles. JLMarais 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: Added more contextual backround through mention & linking in 'Christian Zionism' which futher establishes some of the ideas presented in a non-OR way.
  • Delete as pov and OR. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment / request by Author: Request to postpone deletion decision to provide time to cite according to requirements where needed & make other corrections if any are suggested.
    • Comment The new version is still totally unsourced, and contains at least one flat-out lie in "The United Nations has never condemned Arabs countries for any military act" (checkable in all of 10 seconds on the list of resolutions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment by Author: I responded on Iridescenti's talk page. Inserted here for convenience: I don't understand by what you mean by totally unsourced. "Embedded HTML links" is an acceptable way to cite according to policy as far as I could tell. I restructured the article as per recommendations from other editors & adapted the 'lie' you mentioned (it wasn't 100% correct, but not far off) and added a book citation for it.
  • delete I recognize that the article is under construction, but it is just a new version of an old article and it seems to be hopelessly OR and POV. Not to mention that adding an 'under construction' tag to an article doesn't make it immune to deletion. Makerowner 00:31, 6 May 2007 (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.
Languages