Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraticelli

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraticelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a copy paste from a book. There is no encyclopedic value. It is a serious breach of WP:NPOV. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. No rationale proposed. I'll skip on the first two statements, but could you elaborate on the NPOV issue and how it connects to deletion? East of Borschov 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which lists a ton of sources, yet it has "no encyclopedic value"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is not neutral. Using words like honored and dishonored whenever describing a person in a article is not neutral. This article is completely unsourced. A catholic encyclopedia is not a reliable source as it is POV pushing --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic may be encyclopedic, however this article does not have any value. All it contains is a opinion of some person who wrote the encyclopedia. The entire article is not neutral. It is full of peacock terms. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. You admit the subject may be encyclopedic, so this AFD is completely unnecessary. Vodello (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you reading? "Honour" is used twice in this one, once for "honourable confinement" and once in a direct quote. I can find little that can be reasonably construed as POV. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is a specific example quoted from the article: "Bonagrazia of Bergamo, a capable lawyer and up to that time a bitter enemy of the Zelanti, presented a daring protest against this Bull to the Consistory". This sentence is not written in a NPOV. The word "daring", "capable", and "bitter". These words are not necessary, they are peacock terms. The entire article is written like this. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close I don't want to be rude, but the claim of "no encyclopedic value" is without value. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If it's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, its notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article does appear to have some issues, as the nom points out, it also appears that the gross outline of the article's lead is congruent with what the Google Books tool yields in its first page of hits. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- This is an encyclopaedia article. It may need updating to current views of the subject. It may require attention to reflect non-Catholic POV issues, but those are issues concerning improvement. Deletion should not even be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 5 October 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.