Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillars of the Church

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 was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pillars of the Church

Pillars of the Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Original research. The phrase is used in the Bible, but everything else is fanciful. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Zero sources, much speculation (original research). I've never seen so many "seem"s in an article. Nick Graves (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Took the words right out of my mouth. My vote is for a Delete as well. JuJube (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to find this article rubbish. I may have voted for its deletion. I could be going away now. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur about the Seems, if you're basing your article on that, you sure as hell better back it up with some good sources that say so, this article doesn't even bother to have any link outside of Wikipedia, so delete per WP:OR. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Also violates WP:NOT and WP:V. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Since nom'd no attempt to add sources (I can't find any) so looks like WP:NOR.--Sting au Buzz Me... 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This does not look to me quite like the standard WP:OR article. It looks to me as if the original author did have sources, but has failed to cite them. If that is the case, the article is not WP:OR, but merely one of many unreferenced articles. I have just placed a warning of this AFD on his talk page, in the hope that he will rescue the article. The article seems to be a commentary on Galatians 2:9 which refers events also described in Acts 15. There is no contemporary commentary on the New Testament; all we have is Early Church Fathers, often several generations later. The question is whether the article reflects ancient speculation or published modern speculation (neither of which is WP:OR) or mere recent speculation. I would in any event prefer to see the article trimmed somewhat or setting out competing views on the subject matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Have strated to amend the article and get it up to Wikipedia standard. John D. Croft (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The above user asked me to withdraw my nomination. My vote stands, since the vagueness of the statements remains and the references added are also vague - there no page numbers, let alone direct quotes. There's no evidence that any of the references refer to the phrase "Pillars of the Church", and as such this is essentially a coatrack article. StAnselm (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (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.