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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed articles (99% of them don't even exist yet!) on this "disambiguation" page do not follow any known Wikipedia format. They are all basically extensions of one article and one theme, namely Messianic prophecies, which does not need a disambiguation page yet, if at all. Everything on this page is coming from, and being turned into a mind-numbing drum-beat of "Messianic Judaism POV of Messianic prophecies" again and again (after all, do we need twenty articles about each Christian group's views about the same subject of the Messiah since they will all cite the same Biblical sources?) This violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox (i.e. no propaganda, self-promotion, advertsing). In addition, there is a faulty premise at work here that assumes that all the other religions subscribe to "Messianism" (such as the "Bahais" or Islam) when they don't even call it that and they do not even believe in "Messianism" as such (a strictly Christian, or more precisely a notion and "slogan" popular with Hebrew Christians as is clearly implied all over this "disambiguation" page.) Thus this page promotes the spread of a neologism ("Messianism for the masses anyone?") and fans the flames of unwanted and unwelcome no original research. IZAK 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Rachack 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the mess. --Ezeu 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I suspect there is a subsegment of comparative religion that compares such prophecies, but it does seem to beg the question to make this one the subject of lots of splinter articles and a particular phrase that is favored by one religious group. --Leifern 11:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. --Hersch 13:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nuff said D'n 11:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe creation of the page appears to have followed a consensus sought and reached at Talk:Messianic_prophecies which no previous poster here has mentioned. I have not read the detail of it - the topic is profoundly uninteresting to me - but it is clear that a group have been discussing how to work on a difficult article and have arrived at a modus operandi. That is a hopeful sign. I suggest giving them a month to write some of the articles, and also making sure that those who came to teh decision that starting this series of articles are engaged in this discussion. So -D-o-n-'-t- -d-e-l-e-t-e-,- -y-e-t- Midgley 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete While the above comment re: Talk:Messianic_prophecies has some merit, there is more merit to the opinion that this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to proselytize. There is also the danger of this becoming original research because interpretation of such prophecies is very subjective. Rooster613 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
• Delete. An excuse for POV forking. JFW | T@lk 12:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there are already different pages, there is no need for disambiguation. Not to mention that a good article should discuss the various types anyway. Last, but not least, disambiguation is not a table of contents. PhatJew 13:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete articles that both exist and are related may be mentioned under see also or {{main|XYZ}} at the relevant chapters in the Messianic prophecies article. Disambig pages are for different concepts with the same name, not for POV pushing. gidonb 13:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to vote Keep on the proviso that they make this part of a Wikiproject. This is in danger of being seriously POV simply because it looks like a very small group of people are currently involved. While the instigator of the scheme has not yet responded to the AfD notice (or comment on his talk page) we can hardly expect him to impressed, given the amount of discussion that this topic has already generated on Talk:Messianic_prophecies. However, I'm not convinced that this topic needs so many pages at all. So I vote Delete, and want to see genuine expansion of the existing pages to the point where this scheme is warranted. JGF Wilks 13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above. ems 14:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per all of above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Don't need a disambig for non-existing future planned pov forks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to me like a mess. There may be a topic here, and there may be some legitimate way to do this, but there is nothing here that calls for being handled as a disambiguation page. Yes, I think it would be legitimate to discuss the things that Christians view as prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, and similar beliefs in other religions, and the arguments for and against considering these matters related. But this does not seem to me to be the correct vehicle. Delete, but try to work out how to handle this topic, maybe through a WikiProject. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur, now, on that basis. But the effort to help the people involved produce an article useful to people comparing their imaginary friends is a proviso for Delete, provided that...Midgley 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per above. Yid613 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per PhatJew. What's with this throwing around of this 'POV' term? Anything w/r to religion is POV. While I think that a categoriation of this subject is in order, at this time with very few pages initiated, this page is not relevant. --Shuki 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons above and to reinforce standards of quality yonkeltron 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons provided. Evolver of Borg 05:58, 16 March 2006 (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.