The result was Keep now that the article has been substantially re-written and the nomination withdrawn. 28bytes ( talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable
neologism. The article is a massive collection of
original research and
synthesis. Many of the sources I could access don't even use the term, including the one used to source the statement: "Those that believe in collective salvation often claim Christianity and other religions as their base religion, but see all religions as one of many paths toward salvation." Sun Myung Moon and Barack Obama (!) do use the term, but with different meanings - and I'm pretty sure neither means the same as our article, though I could be wrong, given that the article is rather hazy on what collective salvation is actually supposed to be. I'm also pretty sure neither is a reliable secondary source.
Huon (
talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
I have never seen such an shark pack attack on Wikipedia before. Multiple deletion request pages with the same arguement. Gutting of the original article changing the focus and deletion of references and notes. Thus making other points weak or null. In general, I have always thought Wikipedia editors to be generally supportive in helping others in making better articles. Using a phrase for the need for deletion that was under review - AS Noted under the section Sources and references above by Editor2020 above and pending change as documented above - the main requirement for deletion. Before the massive gutting the article was like this here.
It is painfully obvious that an agenda is being driven by a few editors. Dicredit, refocus and neutralize. I used to support and encourage people to use Wikipedia. I can see that it has been radicalized by the PC police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcrin001 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2011
*Delete. Per nom -
WP:NOR.
Elizium23 (
talk) 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Speedy keep of the rewritten version.
Elizium23 (
talk) 16:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep now that the article has been substantially re-written and the nomination withdrawn. 28bytes ( talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable
neologism. The article is a massive collection of
original research and
synthesis. Many of the sources I could access don't even use the term, including the one used to source the statement: "Those that believe in collective salvation often claim Christianity and other religions as their base religion, but see all religions as one of many paths toward salvation." Sun Myung Moon and Barack Obama (!) do use the term, but with different meanings - and I'm pretty sure neither means the same as our article, though I could be wrong, given that the article is rather hazy on what collective salvation is actually supposed to be. I'm also pretty sure neither is a reliable secondary source.
Huon (
talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
I have never seen such an shark pack attack on Wikipedia before. Multiple deletion request pages with the same arguement. Gutting of the original article changing the focus and deletion of references and notes. Thus making other points weak or null. In general, I have always thought Wikipedia editors to be generally supportive in helping others in making better articles. Using a phrase for the need for deletion that was under review - AS Noted under the section Sources and references above by Editor2020 above and pending change as documented above - the main requirement for deletion. Before the massive gutting the article was like this here.
It is painfully obvious that an agenda is being driven by a few editors. Dicredit, refocus and neutralize. I used to support and encourage people to use Wikipedia. I can see that it has been radicalized by the PC police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcrin001 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2011
*Delete. Per nom -
WP:NOR.
Elizium23 (
talk) 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Speedy keep of the rewritten version.
Elizium23 (
talk) 16:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
reply