Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branch Davidian views on the Lord's Supper


 * 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   redirect to Branch Davidians. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Branch Davidian views on the Lord&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I honestly don't believe the Branch Davidians' view of the Lord's Supper deserves its own article. The Branch Davidians' notability does not stem from their Eucharistic theology; any content in this article that's worth keeping could easily be merged into the Eucharistic theology article which contrasts different positions on the issue. Also, the Branch Davidians' stance on this issue is not only not notable, it isn't even unique to them, as it is essentially the same position shared by the Plymouth Brethren, Schwarzenau Brethren and some Anabaptists. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Branch Davidians. Lack of notability isn't sufficient grounds here, if this page is considered a subarticle of Branch Davidians or Eucharistic theology, but this page as it stands is not sufficiently high quality to stand on its own, nor is Branch Davidians so long as to warrant splitting. Branch Davidians is probably a better merge target in this case, since inclusion of this content in full in Eucharistic theology may be WP:UNDUE. Ibadibam (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salt delete or if you are feeling nice, redirect per Ibadibam. This is a very small denomination, and their views, albeit allegedly unique, have not attracted much notice outside of its members. If, as the nom suggests, this is not even unique, then there's yet another reason to delete it and salt it. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2013 (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.