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. I'm closing this as "no consensus" so ya'll can discuss the merge proposal on the appropriate talk pages of the subjects. Thank you for assuming good faith.
SarahStierch (
talk) 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Seems to fail
WP:N (or
WP:NBOOK). I cannot find significant coverage about this document or statement in unaffiliated reliable sources to meet notability criteria. For example, found nothing significant in gBooks hits.
Novaseminary (
talk) 07:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename and repurpose to an article on the
Strict Baptists, which at present redirects to
Reformed Baptists. We also have a
List of Strict Baptist Churches. We ought to have an article on the denomination, linked to the present brief section in the Reformed article. The article under discussion would provide a section for that, and the present title could then become a redirect to that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Good point, and I think that merge was good. And I don't know that this 1966 document is important enough to justify any significant portion of that article. Nor do we know the document is important enough to the broader group or related to a broad enough group of the "Strict Baptists" to avoid a redirect being misleading or confusing. That redirect could also be confusing because some similarly named documents are notable in their own right (
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,
Category:Baptist statements of faith) even if this one is not.
Novaseminary (
talk) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar♔ 03:01, 16 December 2013 (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.
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. I'm closing this as "no consensus" so ya'll can discuss the merge proposal on the appropriate talk pages of the subjects. Thank you for assuming good faith.
SarahStierch (
talk) 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Seems to fail
WP:N (or
WP:NBOOK). I cannot find significant coverage about this document or statement in unaffiliated reliable sources to meet notability criteria. For example, found nothing significant in gBooks hits.
Novaseminary (
talk) 07:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename and repurpose to an article on the
Strict Baptists, which at present redirects to
Reformed Baptists. We also have a
List of Strict Baptist Churches. We ought to have an article on the denomination, linked to the present brief section in the Reformed article. The article under discussion would provide a section for that, and the present title could then become a redirect to that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Good point, and I think that merge was good. And I don't know that this 1966 document is important enough to justify any significant portion of that article. Nor do we know the document is important enough to the broader group or related to a broad enough group of the "Strict Baptists" to avoid a redirect being misleading or confusing. That redirect could also be confusing because some similarly named documents are notable in their own right (
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,
Category:Baptist statements of faith) even if this one is not.
Novaseminary (
talk) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar♔ 03:01, 16 December 2013 (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.