Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revival in Nagaland

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revival in Nagaland[edit]

The article cites no sources and repeatedly asserts religious beliefs as facts. There has been a POV tag on it for more than two years, but nobody has cared to remedy the article's flaws. I therefore propose that it be deleted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a mess. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reliable sourcing is scanty, but even if someone finds enough to justify notability, they'll have to start from scratch with this article, which is as far from encyclopedic as it gets (I'm guessing it will be difficult to find reliable sourcing for the workings of the holy spirit). Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge with Christianity in Nagaland. (See my reasoning in later comments. The following comments were for my keep opinion). Regardless of the lack of sources, the subject is clearly notable and interesting. There will be sources. There is content in the religion section of the Nagaland article, though with a lack of detail as to how the unique situation described there (a population that is 95% Christian, with 75% being Baptists) arose. This article would be the proper article to contain that missing content, not the Nagaland one. There is also a flock of invalid delete reasoning. "Article is a mess" is not a reason to delete - it is a reason to work on the article! The content that led to the pov tag could have been easily changed at any time during those two years, enabling the tag to be removed. Why did the proposer not try to do it rather than include himself amongst the "Nobody has cared"? "Nobody cares" is not a reason to delete! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at removing and rewording the pov text, and I have removed the npov tag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that an article based on reliable sources would be appropriate, and that the event (or series of events) is notable if it occurred. But in the absence of even a single reliable source, merely changing the religious affirmations into more neutral statements doesn't solve the article's main problem, which, as I see it, is the lack of verifiability. Even without direct claims regarding the Holy Spirit, the article as it stands now remains largely a matter of religious witness, because its remarkable assertions must be accepted on faith. If it's deleted, anybody who's willing to perform the necessary research can create a new, verifiable article, whenever they like. But there's no reason for an unverifiable article to remain as a place-holder until somebody gets around to doing that. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that lack of sources are an issue. But that really is now the main issue with the article, since there are sources out there that verify that the subject exists in some form. Is lack of sources alone a strong enough reason to delete? Here is a starter source: [1], mentions a "revival movement", and the Nagaland Christian Revival Church growing out of it. It also mentions things covered in the article: "personal encounter with Christ", and "missionary outreach", etc. It cites a source: "Churches of Indigenous Origins in Northeast India", by O. L. Snaitang, Delhi 2000. And this webpage talks about "the great revival", dating it to the 1970s [2]. And this one points to an origin in the 1950s [3]. However, I have just noticed the existence of this article, Christianity in Nagaland, which for some reason was not linked to the Nagaland article (I have just added it as a "see also"). Maybe a merge with this article would be more appropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the existence of Christianity in Nagaland makes Revival in Nagaland utterly redundant, and adds to the arguments in favor of deletion. That article, too, needs better citation to authorities, as the bulk of it is completely unsourced; but it does at least have some references, which appear (without checking) to be reliable.

The fact that "there are sources out there" is irrelevant. We are not free to write an unsourced article—as the author of "Revival in Nagaland" seems to have done—in hopes that someday somebody will come along and fill in some references to works that are "out there".

In any event, surely one article on Christianity in Nagaland is enough for Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest that, instead of continuing to defend "Revival in Nagaland", Tiptoethrutheminefield might do well to consider turning his or her energies to improving "Christianity in Nagaland".J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Jdcrutch might do well to realize that I brought up the existence of the Christianity in Nagaland article. If Jdcrutch had properly researched the subject BEFORE initiating this AfD perhaps he too would have discovered the existence of the Christianity in Nagaland article and proposed a merge with it at the start of the AfD, rather than (as he now does) present the suggestion of another editor as if it were his own. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of claiming Tiptoethrutheminefield's idea as my own, particularly since I disagree with it. Regardless of the existence of "Christianity in Nagaland", "Revival in Nagaland" should be deleted because it is unverifiable. It was written originally as religious witness. Its only reason for existing was to proclaim the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. Tiptoethrutheminefield's efforts to neutralize its POV merely leave it a tepid assertion of effects without causes, still without reference to published sources. There is no point in a merger of the two articles because there is little or nothing in "Revival in Nagaland" worth preserving that is not already present in "Christianity in Nagaland". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia; as such, the lack of sources cannot be excused by stating the topic is "interesting" and will eventually have sources. If enough reliable sources eventually exist, the article could be recreated at that point in time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is actually not a valid reason. It would only be valid if it was asserted that the lack of sources means the subject is not notable, or does not exist. Articles that have no references can still be fully compliant with Wikipedia policy as long as there is a reasonable expectation that the material they contain is supported by a published reliable source or sources. I think we have that reasonable expectation because I have given a few sources that verify the subject does exist, and is notable. But we don't have sources to back up most of the specific content in the article. I mentioned earlier that the existence of the Christianity in Nagaland article is now making me think that a merge may be the better option. However, I am not yet altering my Keep opinion as I hope continued discussion here might lead to more sources being found. Without them, a merge would be difficult, unless we were to transfer it all, complete with fact tags. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most Wikipedians would side with my reading of the policy, versus your statement Regardless of the lack of sources, the subject is clearly notable and interesting. There will be sources. There either are source or there aren't sources. Refer to the first paragraphs of WP:V and WP:GNG as it pertains to the use of sources to establish the notability of a topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see footnote one on WP:No original research - sources are not required to justify a subject's existence, but there should be a reasonable expectation that sources exist. However, I agree that most Wikipedians might not understand the nuance of that. But I have given sources that indicate that the article's subject, a revival in the 1960s of Christian belief in Nagaland, happened (though maybe not quite in the manner described by the current content of the article). And I have given the argument that any reasonable person would accept that the situation that this created (a local population that is 95% Christian, with 75% being Baptists, inside a country that is overwhelmingly Hindu) is notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote Tiptoethrutheminefield cites does not apply here. The sentence immediately following that footnote says,

The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged . . . .

and virtually every assertion of "Revival in Nagaland" has been directly challenged. In fact the entire article has been challenged with the "Sources" tag, inserted nearly a year ago. Even if the article were presumably verifiable, which most of it is not, even as it now stands, those challenges require verification, which has not been forthcoming, even after deletion was proposed.

I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield that the topic is notable (assuming verifiability), but it has been sufficiently covered in another article, Christianity in Nagaland, which Tiptoethrutheminefield him- or herself first called to this forum's attention, and which is at least partially supported by references.J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subjective arguments about what a reasonable person thinks is notable are not related to Wikipedia's actually notability policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have changed my vote from keep to merge (with the Christianity in Nagaland article) because I think it is unlikely that there are going to be sufficient usable sources to justify a separate article. Regarding the above comment, we should beware of rule-book wavers. This article IS about a notable situation, (a local population that is 95% Christian, with 75% being Baptists, inside a country that is overwhelmingly Hindu), but it would be best to cover it in the main article, now that we are aware this main article exists. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bulk of the article content has already been covered in Christianity in Nagaland. However, articles are not kept on the basis of fascinating and interesting stories but strictly on the basis of notability.Wikicology (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems to be very short and even lacks WP:RS to establish notability. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:11, 27 September 2014 (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.