Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This sprawling article is full of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Author admits on talk page that "To date, no ... peer-reviewed published studies or article or book treatments — regarding Ben Joseph have been carried out by scholars within the 'wider' Latter-day Saint movement." Bensci54 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify your NPOV concerns, as all others thus far have done, as, so far, they have all been adequately answered. As such, the discussion thus far should not have warranted in any sense your posting of a deletion proposal. You say "full of WP:NPOV and WP:OR" – please specify exactly what your concerns might be. That is, please be specific about what you personally are perceiving that is not in accord with Wikipedia standards.

To be clear, this is an article about a higher educational study-area to which several respected LDS scholars have contributed; it presents their collective views as these relate to a comparative study area that is very similar, for instance, to the comparative research done by Jewish scholars on this identical subject of 'Messiah ben Joseph,' but from the scholarly perspective of educators within the LDS Church Educational System (CES) in their comparative application of Ben Joseph research to a historical American religious figure, Joseph Smith. Based on this fact, there appears to be in your suggestion an element of religious bias, if you are disputing a group's right (such as that enjoyed by the various schools of rabbinical study) to contribute to such a scholarly inquiry or to a corpus of published research (both Christian and Jewish) such as this — but as such relates, in this case, specifically to the LDS Church. Otherwise, please be specific in your concerns, and each will be answered in good faith.

Your partial restatement of my comment that no other articles to date exist within the wider LDS movement certainly does not constitute grounds for an article's deletion. That 'wider' field is of no concern to this article. If I must define by what is meant (or what the questioner meant) by 'wider' field, this applies to any individual break-off groups from the original 'Latter Day Saint movement,' the body of Saints led by Brigham Young (which is today known as the LDS Church). Those other groups simply have not contributed to date any published materials to this area of LDS study. Nothing is necessarily defective or wrong with that state of affairs, as seems to be implied by connotation in your remark. The phrasing of your concern indicates that something is somehow 'wrong' with this lack of interest, or whatever the true reasons for it may be. If this isn't what was intended by your remark, please clarify. If so, this should be of no concern to anyone, as there is certainly not an absence of scholarly contribution to the Ben Joseph idea within the LDS Church — which body of published work is the focus of this article (I feel as if I am repeating myself here, and so, my apologies to anyone who already understands the presented basis and validation for this article); this article, moreover, first presents a general background of Jewish sources which may be beneficial, too, for any other faith inquiring for the first time into Ben Joseph scholarship, which finds a basis in an entire corpus of respected Jewish legends and writings.

There is nothing wrong with any other faith (especially within the wider 'Latter Day Saint movement') not having yet contributed published materials to this study area. Perhaps students affiliated with those faiths haven't a publishing venue, as yet, or an institution of higher learning by which their interest in the topic has found an outlet for publication and dissemination; or perhaps they simply haven't the interest or opportunity to contribute to the study area. But their reasons for this, whatever they may be, do not concern this article — nor should they hold concern for anyone. The subject at hand is one that specifically concerns published scholarship as carried out within the LDS Church. This article's sole sect-based focus, to reiterate, is about research and scholarship carried out within the LDS Church; it does not concern any other sectarian group's research in this area, as this is a synthesis of comparative Ben Joseph studies by LDS Church scholars.

The statement I made (given, by the way, simply in answer to another's question) about possible 'wider' religious contribution in the larger Latter Day Saint movement — these being concerns which do not apply to this LDS Church-affiliated article — have no place in a discussion about this sect-specific assessment of the Ben Joseph idea in history. It certainly hasn't a place if it is being asserted to be the basis for a discussion of an article's proposed deletion. Again, please be specific about your individual concerns, and I will be happy to respectfully address them. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is certainly an impressive article, and some may assume like I did that with 136 references, it would be possible to fix any issues the article might have. I was wrong. 136 references, and not one of them is a reliable source for the subject of the article. Essentially, all of the sources used either A) Have nothing to do with the LDS version of this concept; or B) are not reliable, secondary sources. It's OR because there appears to be a lot of interpretation of primary sources here. It's inherently incapable of being NPOV because without any reliable sources cited, it is impossible to know what the neutral point of view is. The author of the article admits above that there is no proper academic treatment of this concept, which is not a good sign for the topic's viability on Wikipedia. If there is a way to write an article about this, it would start with deleting what is already present. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork from Messiah ben Joseph.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the topic is valid, but as it currently stands is a POV fork. It should be wrapped up into House of Joseph (LDS Church). The topic can be adequately summarized in two to three paragraphs. Epachamo (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The biggest problem with this article is that most of the sources it used that are Latter-day Saint related are not using this term at all. Joseph Fielding McConkie's arguments would better fit in an article Latter-day Saint understand of profecies of Joseph Smith or something like that. He does not invoke this term. Actually for very good reason, very few Latter-day Saints would invoke this term. In Latter-day Saint teaching "Messiah"="Jesus". I have been around enough to know that Daniel Rona is willing to invoke this term, but one fireside circuit speaker is just not enough to justify an article. This is fringe language to the religion, if not exactly fringe views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NPOV, terrible sourcing. I worry about a merge because of the possibility that problematic material will just be moved. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2019 (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.