Content deleted Content added
→[[Religion and the internet]]: weak keep |
|||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] and [[User:Scorpiondollprincess|Scorpiondollprincess]]. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] and [[User:Scorpiondollprincess|Scorpiondollprincess]]. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak Keep''' the article seems viable, but needs a big clean up. It seems like it could be of some encyclopic worth though. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]][[User:The Halo| Halo]] <sup>[[User talk:The Halo|'''Θ''']]</sup> 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Keep''' the article seems viable, but needs a big clean up. It seems like it could be of some encyclopic worth though. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]][[User:The Halo| Halo]] <sup>[[User talk:The Halo|'''Θ''']]</sup> 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''', this article doesn't know whether it wants to be a web directory or an essay, but neither is appropriate. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:19, 2 August 2006
Technical nomination, as a prod was applied to an article with a prior VFD discussion. No opinion from me at this time. Prod concern was "This article is an indiscriminate collection of information." GRBerry 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Church websites.
- The following is the longer explanation from the talk page, by the prodder.
- "the overall quality of this article is so low that if this article were deleted, the project wouldn't lose any usable content and we might be able to start over again on a better footing. An interesting point was made on the mailing list a few months ago that Wikipedia has proven to be an incredibly powerful engine for generating content—powerful enough that instead of holding onto crappy content and hoping to make something good out of it, perhaps it would be better to delete it, since keeping around poor content encourages more of the same.
- What makes this article a poor article?
- Arbitrariness: This article goes into deep detail about a couple of small, arbitrary issues, with little concern for proportion. Maybe 1/5th of the article, for instance, covers the scholarship of Adam Possamai, who by all appearances is a promising young researcher, but his work seems to be given undue weight. Are there really no other researchers of this topic who are important enough to name? Are their findings so insignificant as to not merit inclusion at all, while Possamai's take up a fifth of the article?
- Citations: This article is not properly cited, and at best gives inline external links to a couple of random web pages.
- No summary or organization, just an arbitrary collection of facts.
- What makes this article a poor article?
- GRBerry 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: as per PhilWelch (the comments by the prodder above). -- Jeff3000 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is indeed a horrible article with barely any useful content. However the subject is definitely one worth writing about. I will try to replace it with a stub over the next day or two. DJ Clayworth 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article needs a cleanup, but author(s) have made good faith attempts to verifiably source their information. Subject seems notable. I'm hopeful this article can be tagged for cleanup and salvaged. If deleted, I'd be very open to this being reincarnated in a superior form later. Scorpiondollprincess 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per DJ Clayworth and Scorpiondollprincess. Addhoc 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep the article seems viable, but needs a big clean up. It seems like it could be of some encyclopic worth though. Thε Halo Θ 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this article doesn't know whether it wants to be a web directory or an essay, but neither is appropriate. Gazpacho 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)