Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity and patriotism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and patriotism

Looks like a diatribe to me. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, cites no sources, I say delete GabrielF 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV --BennyD 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete TXP as per nom—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cain Mosni (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV. Yep, it's a diatribe. --DarkAudit 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sounds like original research and is definitely POV. ---Charles 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Phileas 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total OR and POV. Interlingua talk 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've got a feeling this will be a short debate. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a clear case of WP:OR. Gwernol 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect or overhaul. Make a redirect to separation of church and state or other pertinent topic, or rework into guideline-compliant article. knoodelhed 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Unlikely to be a search term. --Coredesat 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, and suggest redirect to Christianity and politics. Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research.--Isotope23 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is now on the Antiwikipedia at [[1]] where we fully welcome point of view diatribes and give them safe haven. 67.78.192.139 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete for OR and POV--128.115.27.10 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR failure. --DaveG12345 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopedia content. —Xyrael 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this POV-fest. Nothing salvagable. JChap 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preserve I find this article to offer some views which I do not normally read. If this is not a NPOV, we should instead set up a criticism section in the article to balance up the non-NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.109.185 (talk • contribs) .
  • Two POV's don't make an NPOV. Wikipedia is not a debate club. Fan1967 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't try to misunderstand comments. Two well-worded, dignified and objective POV's do make an NPOV. It is necessary to present different sides of an argument in order to establish nuetrality. I do not in any way support this article, but I also do not in any way support ignoring societal consensus. AdamBiswanger1 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that this is not an encyclopedic article, it is merely a person's opinion, an essay. Balancing it with an opposing essay would still not constitute an NPOV article, it would merely create a debate. There is a potential for an article on this issue, but it would have to be encyclopedic, i.e. here are the arguments of this school of thought, or this sect, or this notable philospoher or theologian. Fan1967 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagreed. Wikipedia is not your normal physical encyclopedia, with limits on the number of possible articles. This article just takes so little space on the server. We should try to expand Wikipedia to include all school of thoughts, even wild ideas. If you disagree with the article, you can always write to explain why is it unacceptable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.127.126 (talk • contribs)
  • That's not an article; that's an essay. Everyone just posting their personal opinions is a forum or a blog, not an encyclopedia. You might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Fan1967 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly Wikipedia is not a conventional hard-copy encyclopaedia. It is, nevertheless an encyclopaedia. It is for articles on factual knowledge. It is not a medium for debate or social discourse. The correct way forward, if this were the policy of a notable group would be to document the group and its policies, not to expound the argument itself. As it stands it is, as has been noted more than once already, simply a political essay. Whether one wishes to read it, or perhaps even agrees with it is of no relevance. Cain Mosni 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic on so many levels. Penelope D 03:50, 1 July 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.