Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology

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 redirect to Armageddon. Its clearly snowing and the canvassing is going to make a broader consensus unsafe Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon theology

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(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]

After receiving no objections to a merge proposal, a merge of the then article was in fact done in April this year. The current article is a WP:POVFORK containing more material, some of which is covered in other articles such as Dispensationalism, and some of which is WP:OR. Most of it is not worth keeping, but any reliably sourced material not already in other articles should of course be re-merged. Since a merge already took place in April, we can't delete this article's history. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:10, 11 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]
Keep: per WritersCramp - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per SK 2.4: "clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". There seem to be numerous scholarly sources such as Belief in" Armageddon Theology" and Willingness to Risk Nuclear War and nobody seems to want the article deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that any reliably sourced material should be in Armageddon, not in a POVFORK. And since there are !votes for deletion here, SK 2.4 doesn't apply. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW, it does not appear that there is any likelihood of this article being deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern of wikilawyering is becoming disruptive. Just because an AfD appears to be heading towards consensus to Redirect or Merge (or generally anything other than Keep or Delete) does not qualify it for a speedy keep or snow close. You've been voting this way on a lot of AfD's recently and it is not helpful, nor will it ever actually result in a speedy keep. Redirection is a form of deletion, and is a perfectly valid result, as can be seen here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Please stop disrupting AfD discussions. SnottyWong ^confess 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors that are voting to delete the article should not be editing the article to gain support. Wait until the consensus is determined. WritersCramp (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags should not be removed until problems are fixed. And the dead link doesn't make for a suitable reference. And why on earth remove the BBC citation I added? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: +tag spamming article by Radagast to get people to vote for a deletion is against the rules. In addition, most the +tags are not required because of the inter-wiki link, again confirmation that you are biased. The +tags should be removed until an impartial consensus is made. WritersCramp (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, assume good faith. And why do you think I'm trying "to get people to vote for a deletion"? I didn't !vote for deletion myself, but for merger/redirect. And there is no policy to support removal of the maintenance tags. Also; Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia.-- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please revert Radagast biased +tag spamming of the article, before I go 3RR. Thank you. WritersCramp (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article's author has individually notified a dozens of editors about this AFD. I'm not going to call this canvassing or vote stacking per se--it appears that the author has picked people associated with the rescue squadron, but has done so broadly, so I'm assuming good faith. Just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Headsup about what? There is a +rescue +tag posted on the article! WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's a rescue tag then there should be no reason to individually notify members of the ARS. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Dozens" of editors is an understatement. He has notified well over 100 editors (including me) about this AfD. I have started an ANI thread about it at Wikipedia:ANI#Widespread canvassing by User:WritersCramp. Closing admin should be aware that over 100 editors (a disproportionate number of which are ARS members) were inappropriately notified about this AfD. SnottyWong ^prattle 14:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Snottywong, yes, but I'll also point out to the closing admin that the author appears to have chosen somewhat indiscriminately--I'll not point out any particular editors, but some of the people s/he chose to contact individually (me, for example, since I'm comfortable pointing out myself) can hardly be considered primarily inclusionists. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Armageddon article is a good starting place for an overview and theology on it would eventually turn it into a book. Even though we associate the name we give it here with Christian beliefs and it is starting with that corner of the quilt it is inevitable that it will someday encompass "The End of the World" in all it's other names from all the cultures which have one. There are many well-developed schools of religious belief on this rather interesting topic but since there is so much more than religion in the topic of Armageddon people should have the option to continue reading about detailed theologies or not. Also, it is possible that some of the various schools of religious belief will eventually grow enough to become new articles after a few years in this one. A clear path from Armageddon to it's religious aspects to specific theologies will need room to grow naturally without causing more headaches. (And having the Rescue Squadron show up shouldn't be seen as a threat, interference or merely political. I am here because I am an ARS member familiar with the religious side of this and know how big it could grow.)Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing the topic of this article with that of End time, which is already an extensive article treating (and linking to) the "many well-developed schools of religious belief on this". Deor (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Armageddon, then protect the page. After the previous merge, this is effectively a content fork at this point; and there's no need to duplicate here what's better treated elsewhere. Deor (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - which probably just means restore redirect. If this is the outcome and it isn't accepted, the page will have to be protected. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armageddon. This article is a content fork, and has already been appropriately merged before the disruptive actions of the article's creator. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and then protect the page. It's an innapropriate fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armageddon. I have not been following this article but was canvassed by WritersCramp presumably because I am a member of the Article Rescue Squad who might be biased to side with the article's preservation. However, after reviewing both articles and the sources for Armageddon Theology, I do not see that this article needs rescuing since it has nothing to offer that is not already present in Armageddon. While there are a number of journalistic pieces on Armageddon Theology, Armageddon is already a theological article and already provides the context for whatever expansion might be envisioned by those who wish a separate article. Since the term "Armageddon Theology" receives only minor mention in Armageddon I suggest a new section Armageddon#Armageddon Theology (Note caps) be added there, focusing on the nuclear war scenario with suitable sourcing from the press where the term appears to have been coined. This would not be a merge since the media coverage is unexplored in the existing article. 76.23.245.128 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nothing much to preserve here. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and I object to being canvassed by WritersCramp to support this rescue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Canvassed as well. Oh, and this is the first AfD discussion i've made myself be involved in that i've voted such. But, hey, canvassing is bad, m'kay. Silverseren^C 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the page to a redirect; literally everyone commenting wants this and WritersCramp has since been blocked for disruptive editing. I think this can be closed now. HalfShadow 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.