Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Courcelles 21:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled religious predictions[edit]

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

This page has contained a mishmash of random "unfulfilled" predictions for years now, with no evidence of improvement. I filed the first nomination a year and a half ago, because the page (1) arbitrarily consists almost exclusively of Christian predictions in the last 200 years; (2) treats significant prophetic failures as if they were no more notable than the daily utterances of Benny Hinn; (3) gives no demarcation guideline so that the equal representation of televangelists and actual religious leaders is all but invited and (4) there is no reason in the world that this particular form of failed prediction is any more noteworthy or encyclopedic than the dozens of other possibilities. I will not participate in this discussion, since I've had my say twice now. Read the article, see its history and ask yourself whether there really is any reason to believe that a worthwhile listing of unfulfilled religious prophecies will come from this. Phiwum (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nicely sourced list of in-links for notable events and individuals. Would we be having this discussion if the title was List of unfulfilled religious predictions? Probably not. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep though possibly rename to "list of unfulfilled religious predictions" per carrite. This list does not fail any part of WP:LIST, it has descriminate inclusion criteria, is of a notable topic, and is not a trivial intersection of other categories. to address the nominators points: 1) not arbitrarily, it seems those are the predictions for which the best sources exist. 2) This is an NPOV matter, we cannot use in-dogma importance as a criteria because everyone will say their prophet is the best prophet. 3) This is also an NPOV matter. We report on what has been reported on, not The Truth, if a televangelist gets as much attention in popular culture he is to be treated equally. 4) You are entirely correct, that is a reason to make List of failed technological predictions not delete this list. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep might need a rename to keep it discriminate. Do cults count? Do rumors started by random believers count? Is it only mainstream accredited religious figures in mainstream religions (whatever that means)? There are issues here. But I see more potential here than problems. Work it out. Dzlife (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a prediction is covered in a reliable source, it belongs here. If it is just Joe on his blog, nope. Ma^t_chups 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Like previously mentioned, this seems like a rather vague title. There's plenty of valid, verifiable information to be had here, but there could be a lot of grey area regarding what constitutes a real "religious prediction", and by extension what a real "religion" is. However, I feel it would be better to clarify and improve the article rather than do away with it entirely. →^Jog_Con← 21:46, 2 August 2011 (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.