Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:21, 11 September 2010

Armageddon theology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The consensus at Talk:Armageddon#Merge discussion was to merge this into Armageddon, but the original creator reverted the redirect. This article is a mish-mash of stuff from other articles, and there is nothing of value here that is not already in the Armageddon article. In fact, there is nothing here that demonstrates from reliable sources that there is such a thing as "Armageddon theology". St Anselm (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast 3 (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armageddon. I did the merge, which had no objections at the time. I see no reason for this to exist as a separate article. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. There's no good reason for a second article on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much a content fork of material covered at Armageddon and Christian eschatology. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per nom. No reason for second article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original author of the article. All that is required for an article at Wikipedia is that it has the ability to expand, which this article does. In addition, it is well referenced and inter-wiki linked. Deleting articles that meet these criteria harms Wikipedia, it does not help it. Just for your interest, the article was never merged, it was only redirected; however, that is irrelavent as this topic deserves it's own article. WritersCramp (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- There is material here which is not in Armageddon. It seems to me that there are as many views of the interpretation of this and Christian eschatology generally as commentators. It is all specualtion, but probably can be provided with good academic citations from leading theologians. How much should be merged to Armageddon and how much to Christian eschatology is a matter of judgement. The article is not large enough for us to need a separate sub-article on the Christian view of Armageddon, which is what this article is trying to provide. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *'''Merge & redirect''' per nom.  No reason for second article. --[[User:Arxiloxos|Arxiloxos]] ([[User talk:Arxiloxos|talk]]) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' I am the original author of the article.  All that is required for an article at Wikipedia is that it has the ability to expand, which this article does.  In addition, it is well referenced and inter-wiki linked.  Deleting articles that meet these criteria harms Wikipedia, it does not help it. Just for your interest, the article was never merged, it was only redirected; however, that is irrelavent as this topic deserves it's own article. [[User:WritersCramp|WritersCramp]] ([[User talk:WritersCramp|talk]]) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Merge''' -- There is material here which is not in [[Armageddon]].  It seems to me that there are as many views of the interpretation of this and [[Christian eschatology]] generally as commentators.  It is all specualtion, but probably can be provided with good academic citations from leading theologians.  How much should be merged to [[Armageddon]] and how much to [[Christian eschatology]] is a matter of judgement.  The article is not large enough for us to need a separate sub-article on the Christian view of Armageddon, which is what this article is trying to provide.  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)