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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms[edit]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Evidently this page was already deleted by User:Kingboyk, see message: "18:54, 7 December 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms".) This is a violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions. This is stealth "interfaith ecumenism" that just does not fly. Perhaps some of the key notions on this page can be elaborated upon in the Interfaith article or in the Christianity and Judaism and Judaism and Islam articles, but the way the columns are constructed here conveys the false perception that each religion gives equal weight or significance to these ideas. For example, "anti-Christ" does not exist in Judaism, since they do not accept Jesus as Christ in the first place, and indeed some Christian groups view Judaism as the religion of "satan" and "the anti-Christ" so that this entire exercise is doomed as an exercise of the absurd. The columns cannot disguise the violations of WP:NOR. (A similar situation has arisen at Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms created by the same editors.) IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Per WP:POV & WP:NOR Shoessss |  Chat  13:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - User:IZAK has made a clear and compelling argument for deletion. —Travis^talk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:My previous vote to delete was deleted! I said this: The format is not appropriate for the topic. Wikitables are hard to edit. It is religious opinion written in stone.--12.72.150.104 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per OR and other cited policies Mbisanz (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, which I think covers this precise situation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Java7837 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsubtle use of a "glossary" (which we don't need in any case) to further a biased agenda. Sweeping generalisations, WP:NOR etc etc. Not salvageable. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Possible neutral term column is a POV assertion that will probably satisfy no one but its author, even if properly sourced. And it will be so just by being different than any of the three "non-neutral" views. As for all other columns, they are all properly exposed already in articles relating to each individual religion and/or articles relating to the terms themselves. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, ditch the Possible neutral term column completely and without compensation. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete neutral column. Initial reasons for deletion are a bit POVish, possibly inaccurate, and an imposing of extraordinary requirements.
  • There is at least one parallel idea of Antichrist among Hasidic Jews who say he would be Jesus (False Prophet).
  • Statements like "Islam and Judaism both consider the Christian doctrine of the trinity and the belief of Jesus being God as explicitly against the tenets of Monotheism." in Judaism and Islam imply both religions give equal weight and significance to objecting Trinity. If such comparisons are forbidden on Wikipedia then it is probably necessary to delete most Interfaith articles unless for every concept discussed we also state exactly how much a weight each religion gives to it, if that is even possible (45% vs. 90%, most of the time vs. some of the time, etc.). Is that really what is being requested here? Per IZAK's earlier admonishment about turning it into a forum discussion that's all I want to say. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POV. WP:NOT#DICT does not apply here. Glossaries are a part of wikipedia. See Portal:Contents/List of glossaries 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)--EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) -
• delete as unsalvageable pov/or. where there are real similarities (or differences) in usage these can be better dealt with in the interfaith articles mentioned by izak or in the articles on the terms themselves.  ⇒ bsnowball  06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most of these terms aren't used in Islam at all, and the "neutral" column is POV. However, a comparison of Christian and Jewish interpretation of terms might be useful. --MPerel 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, review again in a couple of months. The article is only 3 days old. It has clear potential for improvement. It could be, at least potentially, a very encyclopedic and useful overview for comparing/contrasting key usages and acting as a portal to more detailed presentations on specific words. WP:NOT#DICT does not apply here -- this is not a dictionary. The editors should be given a chance to remedy WP:NOR and WP:POV concerns by more comprehensive citation to WP:RSs. The "Neutral" column, in particular, is not sustainable without detailed references. But I see no reason why the other columns should not be sourceable. AFDs are supposed to consider the potential of articles for improvement. This article has potential. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very useful list explaining allot more in-debt that just a mere dictionary the terminology and basic meaning in the 3 abrahamic dominating religions that shaped and formed so much of our existence. very encyclopedic indeed. although i would add more sources it should not read like OR--יודל (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a glossary is good for a small amount of terms in a particular field. A glossary to doesn't give definitions but instead compares and contrasts the terms in different religions (many have no relevance in one or more of those religions) confuses the issue much more than it explains it. Jon513 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve The neutral column should of course be removed as inherently OR. Butt he rest is fairly straightforward. It would probably be better to do this in paragraphs, not as a table, so the entries could be a little fuller.DGG (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2007 (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.