Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed Bible prophecies

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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Bible prophecies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is rife with original research and synthesis. It seems clear that the whole of the article is intended as a criticism of Christianity rather than good-faith, neutral content. --Non-Dropframe talk 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Failed Biblical prophecies are well-documented in serious scholarly sources and useful for historical criticism (the prime example being the dating of Daniel), but this article cites too few such sources and its lede is an attack on a "common argument used by Christians" (actually on American fundamentalism, it seems). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgebattle, just to be clear, the rationale for deletion in this discussion isn't based on the "attack page" speedy deletion rationale which was appropriately declined. The page should not have been nominated for speedy deletion and certainly shouldn't have been labeled as an attack page. My AfD nominating rationale is based around WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Non-Dropframe talk 10:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite of the lede has fixed the neutrality problem, but the point of original synthesis remains. This article is a grab bag of loose points mostly based on primary sources; some of the content may be appropriate for articles on, e.g., the Gospel of Matthew, but without a good connecting source, we shouldn't have a separate article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.