Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion to Christianity

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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion to Christianity

Conversion to Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I nominated this for deletion because: ~No new information

~Extreme POV piece

~It is just not accurate. It represents the Protestant Christian view as if speaks for all of Christinaity

~I think there could be an interesting article on converting to Christianity- and this is nowhere close to it.

~A few days after this AfD began a user reverted the article to a much earlier version. This is the article I nominated for deletion: [[1]] Sethie 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect as per below. Sethie 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article is a horrible, jumbled mess with little useful, non-POV content. The topic might be worth keeping with a drastic cleanup, but Christianity encompasses so many very different branches, each with varying degrees of institutionalized practices, that an overarching "Conversion to Christianity" article—that is properly inclusive and sourced—may be a pipe dream. Conversion to Judaism, on the other hand, looks like a decent, well-sourced article; Conversion to Islam simply redirects to Religious conversion; other religions don't appear to have such articles. The best solution, for now, may be a Redirect to Religious conversion with the hope that a few enterprising editors will use Conversion to Judaism as a template for the creation of a real article. -- Scientizzle 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed - redirect to Religious conversion, with the right to recreate a Christian-specific article with no prejudice if they come up with enough well-sourced material. Quack 688 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems extremely biased to allow an article on conversion to Judaism but lump together all other religions conversions into one article, even though they have virtually nothing in common. The result would be an article with sections which have no connection to each other. This article was started a few months ago and examination of the development shows gradual expansion and improvement until some POV material was added around the end of last month. There is great commonality in the conversion process to many Christian denominations, with major break between the traditional liturgical ones (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, a few others) and the "evangelical" born-again religions. Edison 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As in Quack's statement, I've no prejudice against a future recreation of a relevant article...indeed, I think topic has sufficient merit and I would welcome a properly-sourced article. The current article, however, is awful in terms of meeting Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, & WP:NPOV) and simply lacking in quality prose. The September 22 version is the last NPOV version and had very few relevant improvements for the 5 months of its existence. Conversion to Christianity shouldn't be left as-is, and the last good version is practically empty. Therefore, a redirect to Religious conversion, which contains far more balanced, sourced, & relevant information than this article, seems like a good (temporary) measure. Perhaps the editors that frequent Christianity-related pages could be enlisted to work on a proper article (at, say Conversion to Christianity/draft until some semblance of a complete, sourced work is created)? I'll broach the topic on Talk:Christianity and see what I can scare up. -- Scientizzle 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as misguided use of AfD. If the article is broken, fix it by editing it. Jkelly 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep afd is not a cleanup. If necessary, revert to an NPOV version, like [2], but don't remove a clearly valid article. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What if the ENTIRE article is broken? What if the entire article is a POV push?Sethie 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to a clean version. Unless you think the subject is unencyclopedic, and that any mention of conversion to christianity is POV. In which case I still say speedy keep. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't think that, for clarification on my thoughts on this, read the top of this AfD. AND If that is the extent of the article... I would vote for merge. Sethie 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. I was just clarifying, not making accusations. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Religious conversion. The "clean" version of this page contains only 4 sentences; not enough to justify an article. Doc Tropics 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• All articles start as stubs. We have to start somewhere. It's even got an interwiki Hebrew link. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to see it deleted, just redirected, due to its small size. If this section becomes too large, I'd be happy to see it come back here as an independent article. Quack 688 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep for the same reasons as Edison. Equally uninterested in both, but that's no standard.DGG 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - the stubified version can be used to create a NPOV article, though I would suggest renaming to Christian conversion or something ... BigDT 13:48, 11 December 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.