Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines
Point of view. Member has been warned in the past by other members. Not proven facts SFrank85 18:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the objections I wrote to Salvation Army doctrines are philosophically and logically valid. If Christians don't like it they should try and refute the arguments.Barbara Shack 17:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not the objections you wrote are valid, invalid, correct, or incorrect is completely beside the point. The issue is that you wrote them, and therefore they are original research; see Wikipedia:No original research for why this is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. Regards, Nandesuka 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - not NPOV. We're all entitled to opinions, but encyclopedic entries are not the place for them. CLW 18:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not having the neutral point of view is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for cleanup, and is why we have the {{NPOV}} cleanup tag in the toolbox. A reason for deletion for this article would be if it were original research, i.e. a novel argument about an issue that is being promoted by its author directly on Wikipedia, rather than being a tertiary source encyclopaedia article citing sources where others have already presented the argument. Uncle G 19:14:03, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- The user's arguements that have been created in this topic are not provable and pointless. This is not about editing, because it is not editable! SFrank85 19:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- The article is editable. It's not protected. Whether the arguments are proven is irrelevant here. What counts is whether what is put forward is not original. If it is not original, and sources are cited for it, then concerns about maintaining the neutral point of view come into play, which are dealt with by cleanup, by editing. Uncle G 20:27:16, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- The user's arguements that have been created in this topic are not provable and pointless. This is not about editing, because it is not editable! SFrank85 19:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not having the neutral point of view is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for cleanup, and is why we have the {{NPOV}} cleanup tag in the toolbox. A reason for deletion for this article would be if it were original research, i.e. a novel argument about an issue that is being promoted by its author directly on Wikipedia, rather than being a tertiary source encyclopaedia article citing sources where others have already presented the argument. Uncle G 19:14:03, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- Delete - his topic are not provable and pointless. Beyond editing. SFrank85 19:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- This duplicates the nominator's implicit vote.
- Delete. The article is unapologetically composed entirely of original research. I invite the author to publish his or her original research elsewhere -- not in Wikipedia. Nandesuka 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, appears to be original research. Willing to change my vote if this changes. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
- Delete. I would have said merge to Salvation Army criticism subsection, but look at the article, man. Serious kook. Sdedeo 20:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete irrelevant article - these are objection to Christianity in general - as such they can be and are discussed elsewhere. There is nothing here that is specific to the Salvation Army --Doc (?) 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Doc. The objections in this article do not obviously relate to the Salvation Army as differentiated from many other Christian denominations. --Metropolitan90 23:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOT --ZappaZ
23:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC) - Delete. The article overflows with POV that is irrelevant to the subject matter and has no home anywhere else on Wiki. -Splash 23:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is one shitty article. — Phil Welch 01:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Barbara Shack 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Is my article shitty? If I used grossly offensive language like that I would be warned at the least. If I persisted I would be soft-banned or even hard-banned. Lets have the same language rules for everyone.
Having something I have written torn apart like this is bad enough without grossly offensive language.
- Delete as OR, religioncruft, personal rant, whatever. MCB 04:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this absurdity. --Nicodemus75 07:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Doc. Irmgard 10:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, theological "deep thoughts" having nothing to do with the Army. Gazpacho 16:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete These comments are the authors POV and have no place in an Encyclopedia Kiwimac
- Barbara Shack 18:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Can the material or some of the material in the article be transferred to criticism of fundamentalist Christianity?
- You calling the Salvation Army a fundamentalist Christian church? Because the Army is far from that! SFrank85 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete – Not encyclopedic. --WhyBeNormal 02:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - original research. Jonathunder 04:26, 2005 September 9 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
