Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious identity

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. (and welcome a new article on the topic) —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 06:45Z

[edit] Religious identity

Religious identity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article consists entirely of original research by a single writer. I'm not interested in seeing "keep" votes on account of "topic is notable." I agree with that. But if the article can't be cleaned up somewhat and organized into a credible presentation of the subject, it should be deleted instead. YechielMan 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed --frothT 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Carson S 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article fails WP:V and WP:OR. The topic does seem notable, however, the current article isn't worth preserving. Soltak | Talk 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Purely original research. Not a single sentence is anything that we can use to build an article. JChap2007 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:OVERCOMPLICATED. The topic is notable, but even if anyone wants to start an article on it, they could/should not use the text that is there now. And yes, one of the WP policies I've cited is fictional. Black Falcon 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Of course the topic is notable, and I would enjoy reading an article on that topic. This is not that article, this reads as something made up in school one day. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. -Markeer 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - I agree, sometimes it is better to delete and start from scratch. GabrielF 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It does read funny; plus, it was created as the sole edit by the user two months ago. - grubber 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This page would need a complete rewrite from scratch - at the moment, it's simply OR. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Too bad since a legit article would make for quite an interesting read. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:03, 11 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.