Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophetic gift of Ellen White

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 No consensus to delete; default keep. Possible merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:40Z

[edit] Prophetic gift of Ellen White

Prophetic gift of Ellen White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is pure religious cruft. It pretends to be NPOV by using words such as "believed" but even the article name is blatantly POV. Delete Nardman1 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube 07:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article is not "blatantly POV" at all, and I don't see how anyone who has read the article right through could claim that. It cites a very wide range of sources from conservative Adventist and progressive Adventist through to former Adventists and non-Adventists. It also includes a large number of critical views, listing and linking to the primary critics. Of course, contributions to further improve the NPOV are always welcome. Colin MacLaurin 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - a rename to a less POV title might be in order. Part Deux 10:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just realized that shortly before the nomination, one user made three edits deleting critical material. I have reverted them to replace the material. Colin MacLaurin 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Controversial subjects can be discussed as long as multiple views are allowed, and this article has a good deal of critisism as well. Not that it should matter, but I am not an Adventist. Bbagot 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (possibly rename). A valid topic, but it needs a cleanup to use more neutral language and become a little less wordy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ellen G. White - Skysmith 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Skysmith. By the logic of the nominator, papal infallibility should go, too, since "the article name is blatantly POV". The content here is good, but a merge and a little judicous cleaning would go a long way. -- Plutor ^talk 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and cleanup. I do not believe a merge in this case would be effective, since this particular topic has been the subject of discussion in the relevant religious circles quite independently of the individual herself. The discussion of the figure and her gift as it appears in literature and history require a significantly different treatment, so I believe the articles should both be retained and kept separate. Of course, this article requires some non-trivial cleanup and rewording. One case in point: "Ellen White didn't call herself a prophet, as there were others in America at the time who were claiming the title and giving it a bad name." Statements such as this are not encyclopedic unless they are attributed; otherwise they introduce the editors' point of view and likely quite a bit of original research as well. Still, problematic statements are not sufficient grounds for removing the entire article or simply merging the content with another topic from which it has sufficient verifiable independence. ◄Zahakiel► 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, or keep and cleanup. bibliomaniac15 18:20, 21 February 2007 (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.