Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

message: The following request was made of those above who are writing essay-length responses to each other's comments, using this page more like a talk page and it is therefore losing the decorum usually associated with AfDs: 
:Hi: Pardon my advice. Regarding what is happening now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Normally, Wikipedia AfD pages are not the place to conduct massive debates between parties. You did a good job presenting your views. You should not be writing essay-length responses and retorts to others as that just clogs up the page, makes the whole process messy and hard to follow, and is over-all counter-productive and very annoying to most editors who do not do such things when coming to vote and give their views (usually not more than a few sentences, if that.) I know it is not easy for a writer, but try to be consise and to limit yourself to paragraph-length responses at the most. People coming onto the page can go to the article's talk page to see and join detailed debates. Thanks for giving this your attention. I am placing a similar message on the others who are creating havoc on that page with full-blown essay-length responses rather than more focused replies that would be much more helpful to all concerned. IZAK (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request, be briefer in your AfD comments

message: As per concerns of User:DGG, the neutral terms/overlapping terms column in in the process of being has been removed.  That leaves three columns that are completely sourcable.  Or rather, if the columns are not sourceable, then neither are any of the wikipedia articles associated with each of the terms.  Are we prepared to delete those articles as well? Egfrank (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per concerns of sourced material, I've updated roughly a third of the Messianic cells with reference citations (and corrections based on those citations).  It's impossible to continue for the evening, however, and because of my schedule it may take as long as 1 to 2 weeks to complete those cells.  Again, I urge that this article be treated 1) as any other glossary, 2) as any other sourced article regarding a religious group, and 3) as any other article under active construction.  Those in favor of this article are working very hard to reduce or eliminate the concerns of those who are not in favor.  I invite those with concerns to offer either constructive assistance, or at least constructive patience.  Right now there is a lot of goodwill going in one direction -- and this is a request for it going in both directions.  After all, if an AfD page can't demonstrate NPOV, who can?Tim (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain unconvinced that the views of "Christians" or "Jews" on these topics can be summed up in a single line. one can source a single view, but it will always be that of a particular perspective within the religion. I am unfamiliar whether there is a similar range in "Messianic Judaism,"  but I would expect there to be.  I recognize the possible utility of such a list, but I do not see how it can be done except with the sort of synthesis not permitted by OR. In articles about the individual terms, on the other hand, there is space to give examples of the range of views and definitions. If kept, i will have suggestions about some of the items, but that is not relevant now. But I do not see this as representing a POV towards or against "Messianic Judaism", and I think that was the force of some of the strongest objections.  There's an interesting general discussion at the new essay Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research. I am undecided on the issue. DGG (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article update - Neutral terms column removed