Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah

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 per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). AfD is not the best forum to address NPOV issues; take it to the talkpage, RfC or Arbcom if necessary. Skomorokh 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah

WP:Content fork of Yahweh. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remind me not to stand near you during a thunderstorm.... Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I wasn't drinking when I read that comment, otherwise you'd probably owe me a new iBook. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long running content dispute (not necessarily with the nom, just in general) over the proper name of the Judeo-Christian diety. Both articles have ample sourcing, and are not entirely duplicative. Work out your issues on the talk pages gents :). Xymmax (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly well sourced article. I don't see why it warrants deletion. (I'm trying to resist the urge to say that "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah") -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly a content fork. The sourcing is a laugh, even though some of the worst offenders have been removed this week. The main point of the article, as far I can see, is to circumvent statements in the introduction of the Yahweh article that distinguish between the views of Christian and Jewish theology on the subject; giving the Jehovah article a far less neutral POV. I have been asking the editors of the Jehovah article what distinguishes the intent of that article from the Yahweh article, and although I have gotten responses, I have not gotten an answer [1]. If the editors do not know what the difference is between the two articles who does? The main differences I see are not in content, but that 1.the Jehovah article is more poorly written, 2.poorly referenced [2], and 3.more POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a little more here because the issue may not have been made sufficiently clear. Both the Jehovah article, and the Yahweh article, discuss how one of the Hebrew names for God (יהוה)came to be pronounced in English. Both articles discuss several different possibilities for pronouncing the original Hebrew (which, according to Jewish tradition, is never pronounced), and both are dealing with this issue as it is in Christian tradition. The Jehovah article is a content fork because it is dealing with the same subject as the Yahweh article: the English language pronunciations for יהוה that were developed and chosen in Christian usage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV is not a deletion issue, it's a cleanup issue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I listed a number of issues with the article, which I know are not grounds for deletion. If any of that is inappropriate here, I will remove it. But, considering that many AfDs do not succeed, I thought it worth mentioning some content issues with the article, with the hope that the problems could be corrected. As for the AfD, I am still waiting for an explanation, from those voting to "keep", why the article is really not the content fork it appears to be. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Comment. Both nom and another editor referred to this as a content fork. However, prominent among the example listed at the policy page as to what is not a content fork are articles whose subject is a POV. Religious articles certainly are prone to this, with listed examples such as Creationism or Biblical criticism or Biblical literalism. Aren't the Yahweh/Jehovah articles really just another example of that? Xymmax (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if this is a content fork from Yahweh, it seems to be extensive enough to merit such a fork, and it could not be re-merged back into Yahweh without either losing information or giving this version undue weight. The version I read seemed reasonably well focused on what makes the spurious transliteration Jehovah unique, and describes its history. Perceived NPOV issues do not justify deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator should have looked for Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. AFD is not the right way to propose a merger. I see no reason for deletion of either article, and don't have enough scholarly expertise myself to know whether the pages are better merged or not. GRBerry 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per policy referenced by Xymmax. In my opinion it falls under this category of what is not a content fork.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entirely apart from its contents, there must be a Jehova article, just like there must be Yahweh and Tetragrammaton articles. Some people like one name and hate the other (and some hate both), so for religious reasons it is impossible to delete one of Jehova or Yahweh. It is a worthwhile goal to move common content to the 'neutral territory' Tetragrammaton.213.84.53.62 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't quite see why this up for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but any reason why it shouldn't be merged with Yahweh? Tarinth (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure, they are two different ways of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, and have evolved into distinct name, each with its own theological and liturgical use. StAnselm (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedia. MrPrada (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jahweh.--Berig (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editors from both the "Jehovah" article and the "Yahweh" article dialoged with each other in approximately April 2007. A cordial agreement was reached between "Richardshusr"(aka Richard} and Anthony Appleyard in which Anthony Appleyard would write an Article on "Yahweh" and an Article on "Jehovah". After Anthony Appleyard wrote both articles, normal editing started again on each article, and relative harmony has existed on both Articles for approximately 12 months.

In my opinion. both of these Articles should remain as Wikipedia Articles.

In my opinion the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is a better Article today than it was 2-3 days ago when it first received a label stating:

" The topic of dispute is that Jewish tradition is discussed exclusively from a Christian POV".

Edits were made by myself and several other editors

that have dealt, in some degree, with the issue raised.

To be redundant, in my opinion,

this Article is a better Article today,

than when the above mentioned label was first added.

4.156.15.151 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't logged in when I made the above 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

comments

Seeker02421 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WP:SNOW, etc. I'd love to work on this article, but I fear all my edits will be reverted. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, same thing, different name, can be easily combined and dealt with in one article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a merger would make too long and tangled of an article and there are plenty of sources backing up both.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I kind of see where the nom is coming from, the concept of the word "Jehovah" certainly has enough sourcing available behind it for its own article; perhaps not the one now, but deletion is certainly not the only recourse. JuJube (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep renaming might be appropriate, as the article seems to be largely Christian name for Yahweh, but probably not. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear oh dear. Keep per JuJube. Good-faith nomination but bad reasoning. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep...per the directly above...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with YAHWEH, for God's sake. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge with Yahweh. And make it readable please, currently it's not. //Halibu tt 12:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per above.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article is probably too long and may have other faults, but that implies "clean up" not "delete". This is a notable spelling of the divine name and certainly needs an article, particularly in view of its use by Jehovah's Witnesses. However the article does duplicate Yahweh, which might also usefully be pruned. If the decision is to merge, make sure nothing is lost. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yahweh per Ed Fitzgerald. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calling this a content fork of Yahweh is like calling Christianity a content fork of Judiasm. Both groups have similar, but distinct views on the diety due to having distinct views on sources - while both accept the Torah, Jews do not accept the New Testament or the views of the church fathers while Christians do not accept rabbinical teachings and in many cases the Apocrypha. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder to what extent Christians "accept" the Torah. Christians regard Judaic commandments in the Torah that are supposed to be mandatory as optional. Circumcision is a good example.--71.119.163.188 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Yahweh.--71.119.163.188 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can the truthfulness of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah ever be verified? Is there a source on the planet earth, that can say with authority, that the Masoretic Text, in which the Hebrew name יְהֹוָה‎ is preserved, "is Scripture that is given by inspiration of God"? Seeker02421 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2008 (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.