This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This page is important to religious study. It should be kept. 16:19 11 August 2005 The Halo

This page has practically no information and does not confrom to neutral point-of-view. Moreover it uses the word "literally" with the wrong meaning, and gives other irrelavent information

• It's weak writing, its POV, it contains a lot of irrelevancies. But, it is about a subject on which verifiable scholarship exists. Granted, almost none of it is in the article, but it exists. I'll turn it into a stub and vote keep. Maybe someday I'll get back to it. Robert A West 07:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Since everyone finds the new stub workable, do we have a consensus for speedy keep? Robert A West 19:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering. What kind of article would this be? Either a dicdef of the phrase "false prophet", or you-name-it religious usages of the term plus lists of "things that did not come to pass" such as cold fusion or Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" depending on the POV of the editor (the phrase is usable in contexts outside the religious, after all), or a wasteland of "Your edit saying that Julian The Grumpy was a false prophet in 1127 has been reverted because his prophecies will come to pass in 10 years, O blasphemer" entries. Either way, it'l be interesting... I note that the article has already caused a religious schism right here on the VfD talk page :-) Tonywalton 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep but needing re-work. I've changed that stub from Christianity-stub to religion-stub though; Christianity is not the only religion which claims prophesy (or accuses prophets of falsehood) Tonywalton 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Touché. It was 3AM and I was in a hurry to rewrite it. Robert A West 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you my son ;-) Tonywalton

• My thoughts precisely. Except for the bit about returning to it.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:06:15, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Keep in the current version as a stub. BrainyBroad 11:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — JEREMY 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak writing, but this is potentially a very important topic for people researching religion.--Frag 14:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Gee, thanks! I thought my rewrite was a distinct improvement!  ;-) Robert A West 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep the stub, expand the topic. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable religious topic. Capitalistroadster 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The topic is important and should be expanded (e.g. include Shabbetai Zvi) Dottore So 19:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Should have been listed as a page needing attention. ArcTheLad 19:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <soapbox>Yet another example of why improving the "pages needing attention" process will help VfD.</soapbox>Robert A West 15:08, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.