Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life

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. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life

This is a POV screed against The Purpose Driven Life. After I suggested that putting 17 links to anti-Rick-Warren articles in the article about his book might be excessive, and that instead User:Fides Viva ought to find a few choice quotations from those articles to quote from, "Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life" was created. This type of link-dumping is simply not encyclopedic. JDoorjam 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar. I have not been link dumping. I have been placing links to critical articles, essays and audio resources that expose the horrendeous false teachings of Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven® Movement, that each and every person can research into for themselves. The book by Warren is a book of falsehoods and Scripture Twistings and should NOT even be promoted on Wikipedia in any size, shape or form, whatsoever. The amount of people that have already been deceived by it is an INJUSTICE!!! Everything was fine until you came along and deleted the whole lot and started demanding I do this and that. I have never interfered with your work on Wikipedia, why disturb mine? Either leave ALL the links to the critiques in the main article or leave them in the new section I started. Thankyou Fides Viva 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is unacceptable and anti-Christian. Wikipedia has articles on Mein Kampf, The 120 Days of Sodom, the Necronomicon and even Jack Chick. We promote nobody. We document, catalog, ennumerate and list. We are an encyclopedia, and we don't take sides. --Agamemnon2 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article as it stands, although a true criticism article would be welcome, IMHO. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if this weren't just a list of links, "critiques of the purpose driven life" seems like it should be a section in the primary article ON the purpose driven life, not its own separate article. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have not been link dumping. I counted over 50 links: to say that it's NOT link-dumping defies reality. --Calton | Talk 11:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Better to amend existing article than have this one remain. MLA 12:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not so much an article, more a discusive web-based bibliography. I like the phrase 'link-dumping' used above as a general description. The content does not appear to be encyclopædic, so delete on that basis.  (aeropagitica)  22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain I looked at the The Purpose Driven Life article and noticed that none of the external links were critical of the book. Perhaps one or two (not 50, please) of the links from the critiques page could be saved. Bad ideas 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and sanction article author for above outburst. From the title on down, this cannot possibly be NPOV. Haikupoet 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of links. —Brim 05:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and add a much much shorter list to The Purpose Driven Life. Maybe two or three of the better quality links from this list will cover all factual points. BreathingMeat 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even as I think the book to be wholly unpersuasive, I readily recognize the impropriety of including a page such as this on WP, notably in view of the salient critiques of JDoorjam and Bad ideas. Joe 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure POV, and part of an anti-megachurch campaign. Invite the creator to study NPOV and then to add encyclopedic information to the base article (and to several others they have similarly annotated with their opinions, and staunchly defend). Andrewa 13:09, 6 February 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.