Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Coat of Arms

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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Coat of Arms

The article is soapbox nonsense. Two duplicates of the article (1) (2) have been put up for speedy deletion have been speedy deleted. User:Custodiansoftime has been reverting tags on put the articles (and is now editing from an IP address after being warned on his talk page). FiggyBee 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User/writer of the article is attempting to EDIT the article as per the warning received but everytime an EDIT is made to subtract the "soapbox" presentation of the facts of this item by the author, the original is reposted by someone else! The discussion box was deleted by accident while re-editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete, WP:OR. Alba 16:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on edits, including removal of copyrighted material, change vote to Merge as a section into Shield of the Trinity, provided:
    • Text from Ephesians changed to Wikiquote link: Wikipedia is not a source text, and we already have the Bible
    • Further NPOV work is done. I now think this material is salvageable. Alba 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The two other articles are not necessarily duplicates "mascarading" under false pretense but are rather just different in CAPS so that the article can be found however the users type. Author didn't realize this small thing might be a violation and a simple violation for that matter! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your edits by following them with ~~~~. Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk

• I placed a prod tag on it originally on the grounds that it is unencyclopædic, irredeemably POV and WP:NOT a soapbox. All those things still apply. Delete. By the way, the image appears to be copyright, per this, and has been speedy tagged on the Commons. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per Tonywalton's comments --JerryOrr 17:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the article are not POV. The article sites Biblical scripture which is noted all over Wikipedia. The article also describes the history of this particular piece of art associated with the topic. Your petition to delete seems more POV than the article now revised (which was originally taken from a website so PARDON the Preacher). I read that you are accustomed to editting and petitioning for deletion in Wikipedia for a personal response; in order to have things "answered" to you. This is not neutral as Wikipedia Policy sets forth. Now articles need be neutral TO THEIR TOPIC but not neutral to the societal debates that some folks create over the topics. At this point there is no violation of Wikipedia Policy in the article as written by the original author, however if you care to cite specifically what elements you feel are POV they will be considered as Wikipedia gices the author th option of editing to get article under Policy before deletion occurs. If you cannot cite specifics than you are pursuing deletion without cause.

Yes and the copyrighted image IS property of the poster so ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 68.33.215.131 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Author

Hi 68.33.215.131, I have posted an explanation at User talk:Custodiansoftime which I hope will help explain to you why this page is not suitable for Wikipedia. FiggyBee 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if you wish to retain copyright, do not post it here - go delete it yourself as soon as possible. Right below every edit box is the statement "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." While I'm no lawyer, this essentially gives anyone who finds it the right to make and distribute copies under certain restrictions. GRBerry 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony: You state your arguements but they are based on your interpretation of the facts posted in this article. So again your submissions are POV, not the article. You debate seeking to learn more as your PROFILE states so you inquire about things that aren't elements of the article so as to get a response for them.

You state that "Firstly, content included in wikipedia must be factual, verifiable and notable. A poem you have written is not factual. If the organisation "Custodians of Time" is notable, you have to show how and why (or preferably, if you are involved in that organisation, let someone else do it).

Secondly, there is already a factual article on the historical "coat of arms of God" at Shield of the Trinity.

Thirdly, everything posted on Wikipedia must be released under an open licence; this means anyone can use it, for any non-commercial purpose. If you are claiming copyright to your poem and drawing, then you can't submit them to Wikipedia.

Fourthly, Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR). Even if you think you can make an argument from scripture, don't. On the other hand, if someone else has made an argument from scripture, and that argument has been published in a notable publication, then you can report that they have made that argument."

I respond: Firstly, the article's contents do provide this, yet you seek more but there isn't more... it is all right there factual, verifiable and notable. Secondly, the Shield of the Trinity has a different purpose for Christians. The Coat of Arms in the article you disrupt and vandalize this page for is cited from the Bible. Thirdly, there is no violation copyright. There are no commercial rights released and that is allowed. Fourthly, If you suggest I make an arguement than you are trying to engage in a debate and that is not the proper use of this page. In addition, the scripture containing the Full Armor of God has been published in a notable publication; the Bible. The writer of it has established that "arguement" as you call it. Since I did not WRITE the Bible then this is not personal research as you propose it is. I am reporting no other argument except from you. The article is not an arguement nor is it a debate forum it is a factual, verifiable, and notable element from History. It's too bad it bothers you but there is nothing I can do to make these facts untrue. They have all already happened and are just reported to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Okay, just for you, and because it's 4am and I'm putting off doing my uni assignment, I will critique the entire article on your talk page. ;) FiggyBee 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU GRBERRY!! I understand the copyright conflict... will solve this immediately! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Could you check my most recent change and see that it fits within the Policy as I never meant otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs).

It's better, but you're still making claims (This depiction of the "Full Armor of God", has become accepted by a large group as the Official Christian Coat of Arms or Coat of Arms of God's Family.) that you're not supporting. IF you can provide evidence that there are a large number of people who recognise this coat of arms as a Christian symbol, then you might have the beginnings of a vaild article. BTW, even if this gets deleted now, there's nothing preventing you putting up a (better) article with the same title at a later date. Oh, and please remember to sign your comments - preferably with your account rather than as an anonymous IP. FiggyBee 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, spam, naked evangelism. Everything is wrong. A redirect to Shield of the Trinity might discourage re-creation. -- RHaworth 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete utter nonsense. —Home Row Keysplurge 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Utter nonsense, complete OR, and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Hetar 16:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

* Comment: If there is one thing that this article is not, it is original: the concept it addresses is something which to my certain knowledge, based on verbal conversations and a pamphlet which has probably now perished has been in Public Domain for at least 30 years. Nor is it utter nonsense, though it may not suit some people (who may or may not be members of the Cabal) on Wiki. Whether it is notable enough, and whether it could not be merged elsewhere, are things I will leave to others. -- Simon Cursitor 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:COMPLETEANDUTTERCLAPTRAPFROMSTARTTOFINISH. -- GWO
• Delete, - apart from not establishing why this needs an entry of its own, the article doesn't even do what it says on the tin. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I click on each user who wants this article deleted I see some reference to anti-Christian perspective. Now, I don't care what your POV is. But it seems there is some "ganging up here" in relation to that tangent which is not appropriate for the Wikipedia Community. Granted this article may have started with some "preachiness", HOWEVER, it has since been edited down and cleaned up and is in line with Wikipedia Policies. AS IT IS NOW, it is a good addition to this legitimate encyclopedia, but somehow I think arguing that point to most of the opposition here will be falling on deaf ears. Might I remind you that this page is a discussion for the article AS IT IS CURRENTLY and as to whether it ought to be deleted for violation of Wikipedia Policy or Standards, this is not a forum to debate Christian/Anti-Christian POVs. Please take note of this and Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.. Be patient as I learn to use/edit Wikipedia68.33.215.131 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start on the "poor little persecuted Christians" line. Yes, I'll agree that the article is now less preachy. However, all it is now is a description of a passage from Ephesians; it doesn't describe a coat of arms, much less demonstrate why that coat of arms is notable. It still fails the notability and verifiability tests, and is still obviously just an advertisement for your website. It's just not going to fly. FiggyBee 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the above as an unfounded accusation of bad faith. Kindly withdraw it immediately. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that's addressed to my comment or 68.33.215.131's - however, on reflection, I realise that some of what I said was unfair, and I apologise. FiggyBee 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment by 68.33.215.131 that As I click on each user who wants this article deleted I see some reference to anti-Christian perspective. Now, I don't care what your POV is. But it seems there is some "ganging up here" in relation to that tangent which is not appropriate for the Wikipedia Community., not to your comments. Curse those pesky indents. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From the "poor little..." statement, you seem to assume that the author is Christian?!... and THAT would be a personal comment toward them... not allowed. The fact is that the article references Christian belief or culture and it seems that those who oppose anything Christian might also oppose this article for personal reasons, so that isn't the Wikipedia Community's purpose or problem for that matter. Thank you "ALBA" I like it!! 68.33.215.131 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense, can't find it on Google, and (fwiw, which really isn't much - Christianity should not be a "get out of logic free" card) I'm Christian. Jamoche 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Can't find this use on Google - Web, Book, Scholar, or News. Notability not adequately asserted in article. GRBerry 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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.