Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian poetry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Christian poetry
Seems to be several of some persons poems. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn, new version is much more appropate, Keep. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original unencyclopedic "creation." Demi T/C 01:37, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
- Keep but Rewrite completely. The current article is crap, but the topic of christian poetry is encyclopedic. DaveTheRed 01:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that the topic could probably have a fine article, but if we kept it now it would still have the current contents in history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; either a copyvio or original prayers; then add to Wikipedia:Requested articles.-- Smerdis of Tlön 05:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Keep article in current form. Kappa replaced it with a valid stub, and I've tried to expand it with a bit of historical material, difficult for such a vast topic. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually DaveTheRed got the ball rolling. Kappa 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep article in current form. Kappa replaced it with a valid stub, and I've tried to expand it with a bit of historical material, difficult for such a vast topic. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted. If not a copyvio, an invalid use of encyclopedia space. If you want an article with this title, go ahead and create it now. RickK 05:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Christian poetry could fit in one of those small communion cups. Any addition help is more than welcome. DaveTheRed 09:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 10:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm I wonder if Megan is voting on the new article or the old, deleted one. Better vote Keep anyway. Kappa 12:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- An article would be nice, but a stub stating the obvious (that Christian poetry is poetry with a Christian theme) is not, and neither is a list of Christian poets considering the ubiquity of Christan mythology in pre-contemporary European/American art. Delete. Radiant! 13:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I wish deletionist would play fair sometimes. You want to add in 3 delete votes for a now completely non-existent article? If you watch carefully you might see how a mere list can become the basis for a very useful and interesting article. Kappa 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow you. What is unfair here? Did you see me voting three times for this article? Sorry but I really don't get it. I hold that the topic even as rewritten is unencyclopedic, hence my vote. As it stands it is turning into a 'list of poets who use reference to Christain mythology' which is not informative since that applies to almost every western poet. Radiant! 08:25, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I wish deletionist would play fair sometimes. You want to add in 3 delete votes for a now completely non-existent article? If you watch carefully you might see how a mere list can become the basis for a very useful and interesting article. Kappa 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - If I understand deletion policy correctly, then the new article is not up for deletion right now. The old VfD was resolved when it was speedy deleted. This new article is a start from scratch, and has no relation to the old article, or its VfD. If for some reason you feel that the new article should be deleted, you need to renominate it as a new article. DaveTheRed 19:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite. RickK 21:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- So Christian poetry is "any poetry that contains Christian teachings, themes, or references." Hudathunk? Delete Denni☯ 00:58, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
- Keep the new article. It needs work, but it's clearly encyclopedic. --Angr 06:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. - Mustafaa 06:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The new article is a good start thanks to DavetheRed and Kappa. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly now a good start. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As re-written, a good stub. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid topic if rewritten. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
