Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Shaker


 * 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 no consensus to delete (or to merge, for that matter). --Angr/undefined 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Shaker
Take a close look at this article. It contains almost no information at all about Anti-Shaker; most of it is about Shakers. The info it does contain about Ant-Shaker seems quite nn, vague and dubious; if anything, this should probably be merged into Shaker. I would appreciate your views on this. (Don't let the length fool you.) paul klenk talk 05:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC) ormation on this to make it its own article. It would be better placed as a subheader under the main Shaker article, but it is critical that it be rewritten. I would vote delete over keep, but it would be better rewritten, and possibly merged with the main Shaker article. The Jade Knight 20:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: it looks like there were Anti-Shakers. However, the information in this article seems wrong. It should be cleaned up or merged with Shaker if there's not enough information for an article. -- Kjkolb 05:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not sure what article you read. Gazpacho 07:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, I must criticize the poor sourcing of the article. --Agamemnon2 10:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Shakers. 90% of this article is about them anyway, and I suspect the info over there is more accurate.  I'll vote to delete over keep, if no one else supports a merge.  Dottore So 11:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, content should be merged to Shakers, at least. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and nuke the current article. The currently iteration is unsourced and IMO has absolutely zero value.  That being said, there was an Anti-Shaker movement and I have no objection to a separate article on Anti-shakers, but I would strongly recommend deleting all unsource claims, even if it takes this article back to a stub, until someone wants to take the time to research and write a decent, factual, article.--Isotope23 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or at least rewrite. A quick Google seems to show that they were merely an unrelated array of pastors etc. who criticised the Shakers in books and in front of their congregations, whereas the article does not define what they are and therefore makes it sound to the reader like they were a single united and named denomination opposed to the Shakers, which they are obviously not. And since we're now in the realm of fiction-writing, what shall we invent for our new group to stand for? Shakers are people who (at times) are so filled with the Holy Spirit that they visibly tremble, so what are Anti-Shakers, people in comas? :) GarrettTalk 16:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge While "anti-Shakerism" existed, it was never formalized as a movement, and belongs under the Shaker article; or, if that is too long, under the title "Criticism of the Shakers." Xoloz 16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge I guess. I'm not sure I can vote on an article I created, but originally I meant to title this "Anti-Shakerism." I'm not sure why I titled it "Anti-Shaker" instead. Still much of their culture and history does mention imprisonment or persecution they faced. The only problem with a merger is I'm not sure this works with the Shaker article. Possibly it could just be deleted and whatever's useful in it be placed elsewhere.--T. Anthony 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On consideration could this simply be moved to an article called say "Opposition to Shakerism." Shakers is a featured article and I'd hate to muck it up with something not quite straightened out.--T. Anthony 14:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - anti-shakerism was perhaps one of the reasons that they moved to the backwoods. --MacRusgail 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge There does not seem to be enough significant and accurate in


 * 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.