Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazarene

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 of the debate was - kept

Nazarene

Includes a section which is nothing more than an advertisement for minority sects without any reference to any published work or other sources. Pure publicity nothing more.193.63.129.150 14:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "My god can beat up your facts". Perfectly good article. Keep (as if voting is even required in this instance)Wyllium 14:35, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

If you keep posting your POV all over this site, you're going to get a vacation from it. While this page is made for posting your POV about what should be added, the article pages aren't. Pakaran. 14:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Pakaran. 15:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• There must be something I'm missing here. Keep. Fire Star 14:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The user who listed the page for deletion (aside from listing it in the wrong subpage) was in a revert war about me in a few places about "minority viewpoints in wikipedia" - see his contribs. Eventually he left voluntarily. Pakaran. 15:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just a few home truths for the unregistered user who posted the above comment:

1. Catholicism is the biggest religious denomination in the world. Catholics are not a minority
2. Catholic schools exist because they are supported by a majority of MPs and MSPs.

So could said user (193.63.129.150) please explain the 'minority sects' he/she is talking about? (already voted, see above) --Cynical 15:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to correct location Chris 15:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, of course: completely legitimate. — Bill 16:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jayjg 17:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: It's an excellent article. It has references, maintains NPOV, and covers all bases. It's practically a model article. (However, "Catholic" is not the largest religious denomination, when you include all denominations. It's the largest denomination in the west. Furthermore, one could argue that it is a minority compared to all those who are not Catholic (e.g. "Protestant" outnumbers "Catholic" in the west, but "Protestant" is 15-20 denominations). Not that that has anything to do with this article that I can see.) Geogre 17:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why thank you Geogre, I researched, NPOVd, and edited much of it, and actually had to fight some pretty vicious battles to get it into this shape. I'm still hoping to get back to it to add more information about other groups. Jayjg 17:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Like Jayjg I have expended considerable effort getting facts into this article and rubbish out. From time to time it seems to attract people who do use it to advertise POVs, but several of us keep an eye on it and patiently put it to rights again. seglea 22:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: Enough said. --Valentino 20:26, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Perfectly legitimate article. Frivolous VfD listing. — Gwalla | Talk 20:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely frivolous VfD listing by an anon. In fact, this should be nominated for featured status. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Great article. Liblamb 15:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep, but I'm curious why the discussion about catholicism? This word doesn't occur anywhere in the article, before or after the attempted reverts made by the anon. func(talk) 03:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • It appeared in another article whose VFD subpage this was first placed on. Pakaran. 17:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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.