Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noachian Law

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 of the debate was to Delete the article. Canderson7 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noachian Law

  • Fork of Noahide Laws. Duplicate content with that article. Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Jfdwolff. KHM03 22:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. RK 20:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Not entirely duplicated, so merge whatever is worth keeping back into Noahide Laws. Peyna 01:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this original research. IZAK 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Save research is material derived from Noahide Laws, Biblical references, and Church of God references. More bibliography will be added. Do not see the same requirements for other articles.--Kevin 04:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would a seperate article be necessary in your view? JFW | T@lk 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There are a number of ideas that a small number of authors have discussed that have very little to do with Jewish history, and much more to do with Christian history. The other article is a very good article on Jewish scholars' writings. I would like to set this article up to represent various arguments among Christian scholars. It will be controversial enough among Christians. There will always be references to the other article due to the fact that the history is longer, and Christian theology is a derivation of Judaism.--Kevin 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But if these ideas branch off from the general concept of Noahide Laws, that article would still be the most appropriate place for it. I suspect the number of Christian scholars that has seriously looked at the Noahide Laws is vanishingly small. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem arises when a Christian, searching for information on Christian history of observance, must read through a long list of Jewish thought and history. Most of the writings are C.E., and therefore not really pertinant to Christians. Most Jewish subjects are primarily referred to the Hebrew (as in Brit Noah); Why is this one different? What if a user searching for Jewish thought on Brit Noah, had to wade through several paragraphs of Christian writings? What if the editing were done by mostly Christians, who refused to understand or allow anything that violated Christian thought on the subject?--Kevin 22:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You were the one who wanted to tie early Christian history in with a Jewish concept. The reader will need to read about the context anyway. And for the user searching about Brit Noah, the Christian stuff is at the end of the article. We don't split articles for perceived reader's convenience. As for obstinate Christians editing: welcome to Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV. JFW | T@lk 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You are correct JFW, there is a lot of obstinate editing going on around here. Christians aren't the only editors expressing a definite POV. Yet, rather than split hairs, I think the article is less about Noachian Law than is about Primitive Apostolic Christianity. So I have moved the article to that title. I know it will not satisfy the majority POV crowd, but it may better fit the description. Have and will add more quotes, and bibliography as time permits before being edited.--Kevin 21:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Grins at being called obstinate. I'm not sure if you should call the majority here a "POV crowd". Most of us can spot original research fairly well. If you think the deletion process has been unfair, there's always votes for undeletion and deletion review. JFW |  T@lk 22:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • This a democratic (or perhaps more of a representative republican) process, so majority rules, and the majority have their own point of view about what constitutes original research. What makes me smile is that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have little or no documentation from other sources, and express an opinion. Original research, and POV are in the eye of the beholder's paradigm.--Kevin 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That is indeed a big problem on Wikipedia, and we're working on it. In the meantime, new additions to potentially controversional articles get the scrutiny they deserve under Wikipedia policy. You are completely incorrect about POV and NOR being in the eye of the beholder's paradigm. They are not, and that is why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog. JFW | T@lk 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There you go again, JFW; I think it would be better to leave out the superlatives, and say that Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. --Kevin 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What was superlative about that? And you were really very wrong about NOR and NPOV. Really. JFW | T@lk 01:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be beneficial for you to observe things from beyond your own paradigm, JFW. Completely, very, and really are often used as superlatives and in the cases above, yes. I would admit to being partially, or maybe incorrect; yet, I think even the POV majority would agree to me being correct at times.--Kevin 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Like you, I don't really like being patronised. Part of being human is being incorrect, and sometimes this is due to paradigm. But leaving epistemology for what it is, NPOV and NOR demand exactly that: being impartial and factual. This is hard. I know from personal experience. Anyway, we have strayed (substantially, to use another nice superlative) from the subject of this discussion, so I'm going to do something else. JFW | T@lk 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I am in almost total (a conditional superlative) agreement, and yet I would say, just do not leave epistemology for what it is. For without understanding the origins of our thoughts and our words, we will always have difficulty understanding each other. What NPOV and NOR demand is far from what is practiced, and I can give examples as I have in the past of violations even in the Noahide article. If we can agree on this, then we may even agree on most. This is not a necessary discussion, and yet it is essential to understanding!--Kevin 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • NPOV = articles should not favour one view over the other. NOR = theories not previously accepted and published should not appear on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ... Noachide laws from a Christian revisionist-Apostolic perspective. Christianity can't have it both ways...either "no man comes to the Father but by [Jesus]", or all men come to the Father through righteous acts. The non-duplicated parts fall under the rubric not only of Wikipedia's definition of "Original Research", but also under the world at large's definition of "dishonestly rewriting history". TomerTALK 15:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Save but should be "Seven Commandments of Judaism" for Rabbinical Judaism (Tanakh + Talmud) and "Noahide Law of Christianity" for Apostolic Christianity (Christian Bible + Ante-Nicene Fathers), see Talk:Noahide Laws for details 209.78.22.8 23:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:15, 4 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.