Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Torah-submission

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 No consensus. Walton^One 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Torah-submission

This reads like an essay concocted according to a POV known to few people. What's "Christian Torah-submission" if not a pure neologism?! It is yet another piece of original research to dress up Christianity in Jewish garb. A look at the few external links tells all, and the "citations" are no better. A gross violation of WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Most of this article can be deleted and whatever is new can be placed in the Messianic Judaism article. IZAK 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Messianic Judaism and any new (?) info in the Messianic Judaism and/or the Jewish Christians article/s. IZAK 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IZAK, thanks for your attention to this article and note on my Talk page.

I propose that it would not be in Wikipedia's best interest or yours as an established editor to propone this deletion. While you appeal to a number of Wikipedia policies, I hope to show there is no valid basis for deletion here under any of them.

WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE The procedure when one objects to perceived original research or non-neutral point of view is to edit it or request that it be cited; not to delete an entire article. This is especially true for one that has over 30 verifiable citations. As you know, you or any editor is free to place "citation needed" tags so that other editors may consider them accordingly. Furthermore, there are numerous citations and links to alternate and objecting viewpoints for balance. If there are specific phrases that editors find not to be common knowledge and unverifiable, then I agree that they should be edited in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

WP:NEO The primary objection to neologisms, according to WP:NEO is, "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." If an article title merely uses clear, descriptive words, it does not fall into this category. This title is not a neologism, but merely a simpler way of saying "the view of the Mosaic Law within Christianity that upholds the applicability of the Torah to Christians," which, I think we would both agree, would not be an ideal name for an article. Christian Torah-submission is merely descriptive, in the same way as Illegal immigration or Shaving in Judaism for example. The article is not about the term, it is about one branch of the Christian view of the Law, written in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. If editors deem that there is improper emphasis on the term itself, then I agree those phrases should be edited.

I'm afraid your suggestion to merge this with Messianic Judaism shows a significant misunderstanding of this subject matter. While Christian Torah-submission is an issue within Messianic Judaism, it is not only a Messianic, or Jewish, issue. It is an article on a Christian view, held also by many ethnic Gentiles (as cited), that value and follow Torah (see the wikilinks to the Adventist, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Church of God movements). The fact that there are comparatively few sources citing non-Messianic Jewish related practice, means only that citations should be added, not that the article should be deleted.

Since you're an experienced editor that obviously values the ethics and policy involved in Wikipedia, I appeal for you to consider if your hasty recommendation for deletion may not, in itself, be a non-WP:NPOV edit. Your statement, "It is yet another piece of original research to dress up Christianity in Jewish garb," might suggest a primarily emotional reaction, based on an aversion to Christianity that looks like Judaism, rather than objective reliance on facts. A non-NPOV could also be suggested by your sole focus on Messianic Judaism when other links were available, and your classification of the article in "Judaism-related deletions" rather than Christianity-related, when this is primarily a description of a Christian view of the Mosaic Law.

A careful reading of the sources, especially the books and encyclopedia articles cited, reveal not only the well-sourced historical existence of Christian Torah-submission, but also the well-sourced existence of the belief and movement today - and this, not just within Messianic Judaism.

I appeal to others that agree to weigh in on this discussion.

Recommendation: KEEP and edit if necessary, considering specifics that might be disputed. Namikiw 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ See below re: change - I had to give this one some thought. The term, as it is used, is a neologism. While the statements the article makes are well sourced, and clearly the product of significant work, and while the principle is certainly a valid one, there are few to no sources that refer to the term itself as a notable phrase. The commentator below states, "The primary objection to neologisms, according to WP:NEO is, "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." This is true, and the commentator makes a case against it being a valid criticism of this article; however, it is a quote from the wrong section of the policy page. The source for that quote is about the use of neologisms IN articles. There is another section about neologisms AS articles, and this states something reflecting far more rigid criteria: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case." Note, therefore, that even if multiple sources could be found to verify that "Christian Torah Submission" was widely used, it still might not merit an article. The article does not provide even one verifiable resource to state that this term is in common use, therefore there is no question about its failing to meet the inclusion criteria. Again, there is a difference between a concept and a title; if you look at the Wikipedia entry for Stock character, for example, you will find many concepts that are cliché in both fiction and real life, but not all of them have individual entries. That, by itself, of course, does not mean this would not merit one - but unless resources can be found that demonstrate not only the principle, but also the use of this specific term, this article isn't viable in its current form. Those two things are, I reluctantly admit (because it's always a shame to see hard work get deleted) compelling arguments against retaining it. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahakiel, thanks for your thought-out answer. With respect, I ask that you consider the following.

WP:NEO states:

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society.

Thus, in an article about a neologism, the term is in central focus. How was it coined? Who is using it? In what contexts? With what definitions? (Cafeteria Christianity is a good example of this.)

Does the article we're dicussing try to answer those questions? Does it put those questions in central focus?

As you yourself pointed out, no, it doesn't. The article does not provide even one verifiable resource to state that this term is in common use. There's a reason for that. The term (that is accused of being a neologism) is not the subject of the article.

With the exception of three sentences, the term "Christian Torah-submission" is all but irrelevant in this article and could be removed completely without affecting its information. If the article were simply renamed "the Torah-submissive Christian view," consider the article. With very few edits, it would remain untouched by the accusation of promoting a neologism. The article is not about a term and/or its usage. It is about a view that a significant group of Christians hold. Any fitting adjectives could describe the view and name the article.

For example, the lead sentence could easily be:

One of the views of the Mosaic Law (Torah) in Christianity is that it remains valid and applicable for Christians under the new covenant. This view largely sources from the view that Jesus..."

There is no emphasis on any term and yet the meaning is unaffected.

While I don't see any reason to make wording more complicated if it is already descriptive, the change can be made if editors think it is necessary. My point is this: Easy, small changes can be made to align the article with Wikipedia policy.

If that's the case, then there is no justification for deletion. Namikiw 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have considered that. You state that the term is not the topic of the article? Then why is that the name of the article? One would expect a Wikipedia article entitled "Christianity" to be about Christianity, one named "Judaism" to be about Judaism, etc. The topic of an article is indicated by its name, and as such there is simply no support for such a term being a topic of multiple third-party coverage. This is not a matter of minor changes being required, but an entirely different use of the information you have presented. It may be that the same information might be used to contribute to other articles (Perhaps the section Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law) that have topics named and used in common communication, in that case a Merge to the appropriate articles would be the right course of action. Honestly, maybe simply renaming it to something more appropriate might be worth a reconsideration. In either event, this article would be deleted. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - While my initial concerns remain, they are (as the commentator above points out) primarily about the title rather than the content. A rename to Torah in Christianity would shift the emphasis to being about the way the Torah is viewed and practiced (some submitting, some not) with appropriate data included on both positions. The current data is a decent starting-point for this expansion. This would at once both eliminate the potential POV issues (see the vote below about WP:NOT#ADVOCATE) and ensure the avoidance of neologistic flavors to the article. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article describes something which exists and proves it exists with footnotes. It also seems to be notable enough. The neologism argument doesn't cut it as a deletion justification because, as has been pointed out, the article doesn't depend on the existence of the phrase but on the existence of the concept and practice. I think the article does have some fixable non-NPOV problems, which is not cause for deletion. (Also, what need is there in this article for the extensive, high-up section describing Torah regulations? That's the subject of other articles.) Noroton 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obvious WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. --Yeshivish 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I don't like about Yeshivish's comment is that WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is never, by itself, a reason to delete. As is stated in that very section of WP:NOT: Wikipedia content is not: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. It's worth considering whether some editors here just don't like the particular subject, which is also not a reason to delete. Noroton 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Christianity and the Mosaic Law (or similar, with redirects for all the variations on the name), fix the obvious problems, and expand -- like User:Zahakiel says above. Over at Talk:Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law, we were discussing branching off the section Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law, where this view is currently represented. It seems to me that this view could be a starting point for that article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article is well-sourced, describes a belief system with a substantial number of followers. Perhaps it should be renamed or redirected, although if "Christian Torah submission" is the most current term, leave it the way it is. I don't believe that it advocates anything; in fact, this is one of the few articles I've seen that has links to "pro" and "con" views on a particular interpretation of the Old Testament. Mandsford 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just layman searching for answers. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people find the knowledge they seek. Stop over analyzing all this. This article has succeeded and it should stay. HAYBLUE

Delete One massive OR essay. --Shuki 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Java7837 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zahakiel. Amoruso 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahakiel (above) advocates keeping and renaming. Namikiw 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced: the article should be set up as a main article from the subsection The Torah-submissive view in Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law. Moreover, I see some segments of the article with unreferenced claims, which look to me like advocacy or original research, e.g. Other Observances section. Furthermore, and this goes to the heart of the matter, doesn't the article need to show that Torah-submissive groups have been linked together by notable sources other than the wikipedia author(s)? HG | Talk 11:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is well sourced (perhaps it needs to be expanded a little) and it describes the core of certain christian belief systems with a substantial number of followers, although different in some important aspects. For instance, the followers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church do not circumcise, which is one of the most important mitsvot, while in Ethiopian Orthodox Church it is as mandatory as it is in Judaism, and that is quite a difference. I think it should be left the way it is. I don't believe that it advocates anything; in fact, this is one of the few articles I've seen that has links to "pro" and "con" views on a particular interpretation of the Old Testament. Plus, personally I have studied in a Seventh-day Adventist Church Elementary School in my hometown (we had no jewish school by then) and their beliefs and practices are very different from Messianic Judaism and they always try to make that point clear. Something similar occurs with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, so I don't think this article should be deleted or renamed; this article and (most of) all Wikipedia articles are intended to expand people's knowledge on a particular matter, whether we like it or not its content. Please leave it the way it is. --JewBask 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the rather funny message below (I've never seen an AfD closed like that... This to me is a clear case for deletion. The majority of the article is OR, and what isn't OR is riddled with PoV and Weasel words to the point that one could not be blamed if they thought from this article that this was a major mainstream sect. What little in this article actually has value should be merged to Messianic Judaism. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move into messianic judaism it's really a subtopic of that topic, doesn't have any life of its own outside. Gzuckier 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Shmaltz 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one big original essay. The main author should have no problems to restart an article under proper title and acccording to major wikipedia rules WP:Attribution. `'Míkka 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Appears to be a description of a strict form of Messianic Judaism. Looks well-referenced, but most (all?) of those are standard MJ texts. Could easily be cut down and merged into that article, although a lot of the information is already there. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Removal

WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."

Clearly, there is no consensus and the discussion has continued for over seven days. Therefore, according to policy, the page will be kept and the discussion on editing, merging, or redirecting will continue on the Talk page. Namikiw 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a AfD closed in this manner, and to my knowledge, Namikiw is not an admin. Can someone please clarify what this is? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Chabuk. I was unaware that I was improperly closing the deletion discussion. Apparently, I didn't read the note on my Talk page closely enough to know that a neutral Admin will come along to close the discussion. It was not my intention to shirk policy, and I ask the editors to disregard this Template Removal section. The motion was not malicious.

Thanks for correcting this so it can go through the proper channels. Namikiw 13:34, 2 August 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.