Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen people

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. Sandstein 07:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen people[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually un-sourced article, a mishmash of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH . There is nothing here that cannot be merged into the respective main articles. We already have a Jews as a chosen people article that is well sourced and complete. Further there are (major) hints here of attempts to denigrate certain religion(s) so there are POV issues as well. Perhaps it is merely a WP:COATRACK on which to hang some "ethnocentric" labels on certain people. Stellarkid (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the article is rather vague about what exactly being "chosen people" means. Actually even Jews disagree among themselves on this. An article on the expression might be possible. Part of the problem here is that groups who don't even use that expression are included according to the judgement of the author who thinks that what they believe is similar the Jewish concept of chosenness. It would probably be better to discuss each group's views in thier own article rather than combining them together here. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I had this whole long thing and then I accidentally closed the window :(. I think this is a necessary article to have as a repository of groups of people who consider themselves chosen. Yes, there is an article on Jews as the chosen people and an article on Supersessionism, but there may not be articles on other groups that consider themselves chosen just yet. The article needs better references (okay, references) that might be culled from pertinent sections of other articles. The Spanish edition of this article has pretty good references (whereas the Dutch edition spends most of the time talking about The Matrix for some reason), and perhaps some from articles like People of God. Also the wikilinks need to be link to more specific articles or sections. Steve, I don't know if it would be feasible to merely discuss chosenness in each religion's article. For example Chosen People says that Hindus do not believe in chosenness. You might not find that bit of information in the article on Hinduism (I looked), but it should be somewhere. An article called List of Chosen People would not fare too well as it would automatically be considered POV. What I think could improve this article is that it reveal views on chosenness instead of taking positions, whether groups believe they are chosen or not and if they feel another group is chosen. Basically I think the article should stay but I think it needs a bit of improvement and we need to draw the sources from the other articles. This argument was much better before I accidentally closed the window... Valley2city^‽ 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be sourced and OR can be excised. Absolutely a notable and RS'ed topic. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a potentially worthwhile topic, all content seems to fall under WP:OR, and as the nominator notes, there is already an article for the only group that I know espouses the concept. --Nutarama (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research; sometimes dubious/unreferenced. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is valid in that many groups see themselves as a chosen people. They may define "chosen" differently, but the fact remains they define themselves as such. If there is a statement without a reference we typically add a "fact" tag; we don't delete the article. Using a simple fact tag also quickly gets rid of OR and SYN problems. More fundamentally, SYN and OR are not acceptable reasons to delete an article. Does the article need to be improved? Yes Is the topic a valid topic for Wikipedia? Yes Are lists and related articles on commonalities among divergent groups valid for Wikipedia? Yes! This article is a strong keep. --^StormRider 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to respective articles, if there is anything with a source that's worth keeping, that is. The rest per the nominator. Outback the koala (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly enamored with this article but sourcing issues alone should not be a reason for deletion and being "virtually un-sourced" even less so. Let's not depend on virtue in these cases but on actual facts. (And my brief reading of the article did not uncover the denigration mysteriously mentioned in the nomination—please elucidate.) Keep the article and clean it up. However, if deletion is agreed upon, consider moving Chosen people (disambiguation) to this title. — AjaxSmack 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsalvageable OR.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is salvageable, sourceable, and repairable. Dew Kane (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable general topic. The subarticles referred to are independently notable, and its appropriate to have this one also. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - original research concerns are fixable since the topic has been the subject of reliable sourcing. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:57, 19 March 2010 (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.