Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ


 * 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. Even if not discarding all the new/duplicated accounts voting "keep", the (cleaned up) article still does not really contribute anything that is not already covered in the main baptism article. Voters are encouraged to improve the baptism article and/or discuss things on the article's talk page. Turnstep 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
This is a theological essay expressing the author's point of view. Proposed for deletion by User:(aeropagitica), reverted by author.
 * Note Rfamily, edited this nomination to add Keep to the top. Obviously it is a delete  nomination.
 * Note -from Rfamily it was not intentional to put a keep at top-editing page is new to me. This article is good and I wanted to put my keepvote, started at the top, realized I needed to go to the end didn't realize I'd saved. Sorry for the confusion.


 * Delete. Gazpacho 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as probable original research or essay. Grafikm_fr 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteDany174 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT for essays, not a soapbox, WP:NOR. Author made a good effort to adapt early parts to encyclopedic style, but the article's focus and conclusions advocate theological positions.  For comparison, see Baptism which describes what various religions believe in neutral point of view manner based on widely published sources approved by church councils.  Although the phrase used as the nominated article's title is used in different Christian religions, I'm not sure it's significant enough to keep as a redirect to Baptism.  Barno 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Baptism Needs cleanup though, the majority of section three is too verbose for an encyclopedic article. It does seem to have a valid set of points that could possibly be a full article one day, but right now only have enough in them to satisfy one paragraph in the main article. Ans  e  ll  00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Ansell.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   05:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Baptism This article cane be merged into Baptism. Jinusun 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note This editor has only one edit, namely this contribution to the debate. Jaems 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Baptism I this article has some good points which can be add to the existing Baptism Article Mtanu 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note This editor has only one edit, namely this contribution to the debate. Jaems 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This Article This article gives a specific detail about Baptism In Jesus Name. 59.144.38.17 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This Article is a Unique contents focuses on "Baptism in Jesus Name" Pastor Linu 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this Article - Sound, Biblically based explanation of baptism. Ramesh family 4/22/2006
 * Note This editor has only one edit, namely this contribution to the debate. Jaems 04:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nomination, this is an essay on the author's views and does not contain any information that cannot be found in baptism Jaems 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination, raises nothing that can't already be found on Wikipedia Stormscape 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This Article is very particular on Baptism in Jesus Name 61.246.58.111 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Describe the exact description of Baptism in Jesus Name Linus 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Again, another questionable editor. Only two contributions thus far, one being here. This is getting more and more dodgy as the vote goes on. I have no axe to grind (other than a questionable article), but this is very concerning. Jaems 10:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The creator of the article should add this to the Baptism article. Moreover the language used is pov. The creators seem to adhere to Oneness Pentecostalism, so please edit that article instead. --One Salient Oversight 11:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is soundly explaining early Christian baptism according to the book of Acts in the Bible.  This information is not so clearly explained in other articles on baptism.
 * Merge into Baptism or Move and rewrite as Baptism in Christian Scripture. I haven't found another baptism article that includes significant scriptural references, which probably ought to be somewhere in Wikipedia. GRBerry 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep  I found this to be very informative and accurate.
 * Note This vote was made by Rfamily, who has already voted and has been involved in altering votes above. Jaems 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note There is more than one adult member in the Rfamily household. Please see note written by Rfamily member about altering votes above.


 * I've rewritten this without the POV and advertising, so there's not much left, and not worth merging. Best still to Delete. jimfbleak 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * -Err, sockpuppet/meatpuppet emergency anyone? Homestarmy 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do these people think we are idiots or something? Sockpuppets are easily traceable. Not only will the use of sockpuppets fail to stop the article from being deleted, but it will probably earn a ban on editing for a considerable time period. --One Salient Oversight 10:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Baptism. the recent de-POVing make it seem like there's at least some sort of perspective in there useful for the baptism article. Homestarmy 13:17, 25 April 2006 (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.