Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvinist confederacy


 * 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. Tawker 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Calvinist confederacy
Original research. Google returns no relevant hits on Calvinist Confederacy or Calvinist Confederation (except those in the Wikipedia and its mirrors). The "foonotes" (which are not cited anywhere) were copied and redacted from John Calvin. Immediate (and failed) self-nom for Featured Article status by the anon creator does not lend credence to the ruse. --Flex 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delele, now that I think about it, the idea should merge into Calvin because it's not worth more than a paragraph. It's a real historical thing, just poorly constructed. The Calvin confederacy arose as the union of cantons around Geneva, once it was large enough to challenge Zurich. I'll try to do some work on it later, I have to get books out and whatnot.  But keep.  T  e  K  E  01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge anything useful to John Calvin. This is a poorly-researched piece, wih a title that does not appear accurate. -Will Beback 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Will Beback proposes that anything useful be merged to John Calvin. On my first reading, it's hard to tell if there is anything useful. The lack of any mention anywhere on the web of the "Calvinist Confederacy" is very suspect. If the author can produce any verifiable information, he or she ought to incorporate it into the Calvin article, otherwise, it seems like this article serves little purpose.--Evadb 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- nothing useful or meaningful and virtually incoherent. No sources cited for such a notion. Jim Ellis 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; If something can be sourced around the use of the term in regard to multiple cantons following Calvin (not just Geneva), set against Zwinglian and Roman Catholic cantons, then that information should be incorporated into the Reformation in Switzerland article. The other states mentioned are either not Calvinistic per se or are not confederations.  Regarding William of Orange, the Netherlands are a constitutional monarchy, and any confederation of nobles needs to be shown to be described in some scholarly source as being called a "Calvinist confederacy".  If this article were well-sourced, then there would be no AfD; but it is not sourced at all.  A generic link to the Institutes does not suffice as a source.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-topic, not really suitable for WP. --Knucmo2 22:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic. &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:42 
 * Delete - poor writing style, no organization, not to mention there's just not much new information. If the little content this article contains is deemed worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia by the original author or someone else, it should be added to the plethora of related articles. David Schroder 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - From the first paragraph: the "confederacy" was a "confederation based on principles"...well, no, it was a "system" ... or a "union"! So who participated in the confederacy?  in the union?  Who followed the system?  Who knows?  But ... the Libertines opposed it, on the grounds that Calvin was a "snoop"!  That last word gives away the show.  The article seems intended not to describe a real political entitity, but to portray Calvin in a POV manner: as a snoop.  A MUCH better pair of articles would be one on Calvin's view on church-state relations (perhaps as part of a larger article on the history of church-state relations: preConstantine, Constantine, Augustine, Greg. the Great, Charlemagne, high Middle Ages, the Reformation, Henry VIII/Elizabeth I, French Revolution, ..., Kline, Rushdooney?!) and one on politics during the Reformation.  This overview [] leaves little room in the chronology for a union of Geneva with other cantons, and I've never heard of such (although TeKE seems to have ... what do you have in mind?) jrcagle 20:56, 21 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.