Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushnell view of 1 Corinthians 11
- 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 delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bushnell view of 1 Corinthians 11[edit]
The reason for deletion should be pretty obvious. If it isn't then let me just say that it
- Is an article about a fairly non-notable person's opinion about a single chapter of the bible.
Its basically a notability thing.
Unbelievably tiny parts of the article could possibly be salvaged for a Feminist Christianity article. Clinkophonist 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for the reasons that the nominator pointed out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basis for this deletion is that non-notability is a reason for deletion - and I agree the article is nn. However, there is no policy against nn content. Let me repeat: Content is not invalid because it is nn. Since WP has a policy about everything, there would surely be policy if this were the consensus. There is no shortage of long-standing nn articles. ([[%100_hamburger]]) What makes this one different? In order to be deleted, an article must contain one of the [Problems that may require deletion], an element of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or another policy. See Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If an article can be written about every simpsons character, (which the previous article encourages!) why not a little known interpretation of a Biblical passage? May I stress that to delete this article under the guise of nn is no better than forking. If anyone believes nn is a reason for deletion (and you're not alone in that opinion) go try and change policy - don't work against policy behind its back. --Ephilei 23:24, 22 May 2006 (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.