Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in Haiti


 * 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   Snowball Keep and cleanup. Sean MD80 talk 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Christianity in Haiti

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is one of a group of problematic "school project" articles most of which are now at AfD. It's a poorly written synthesis failing WP:OR; it's irretrievably POV (e.g. "The churches in Haiti are more holy then anything") and so badly written it's impossible to safely rewrite because there's no clear distinction between verifable fact and opinion.

I've managed to rescue one of the other articles in this project but there seems to be a clear consensus that the others are beyond redemption. This one is no better than the others and experience has shown that any attempts to sort it out will be resisted.

See also for information Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science, Articles for deletion/Taoism and death, Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body and Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights. andy (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ironic (and hilarious) that the nomination about a religion article speaks in terms of "rescue" and "redemption". That aside, the topic of the spread of a religion, whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., is a legitimate topic.  The article does attempt to do sourcing for its points, so I don't understand whatever the point is about original research.  I don't agree that the writing on this is as badly written as to be impossible to improve, or irretrievably awful.  Yes, the writing needs to be improved, but I see no reason why the topic of the article is violative of a policy. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said the topic wasn't notable? AfDs are nominations of articles, not topics. The article stinks andy (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the subject of the article isn't inappropriate, then I must point out that AfD is not cleanup. If "the article stinks" is the reason for nomination, I can only say that Wikipedia welcomes all writers, even those who lack your level of literary skill.  Mandsford (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to agree with me but please be civil, thank you. andy (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry... I mistook your comments about what AfD is as hostile. I actually think that you're correct on the other articles from this project-- Buddhism and the body, Taoism and death, etc.-- because those are armchair theology.  On the other hand, Christianity in Haiti is more of an historical topic that can be addressed in a neutral fashion.  Now if someone in the class tries to write "Haiti in Biblical prophecy", that's another story... :) Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I must disagree that Afd's are about articles and not topics. In 30 seconds we can fix whatever is wrong with most articles by finding three sources on google, and striping this to a stub. Things need to be deleted when the topic is unencyclopedic or not notable enougth to be turned into a decent decent stub.  This topic is notable and encyclopedic in the minds of the community, as demonstrated by all the "[Religion] in [Nation]" articles and given that most Haitians are Christians.  If the current article content is crap, we edit.  T L Miles (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, please edit then... andy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - "Christianity in..." articles are notable topics, unless the number of Christians is zero or negligible. Haiti in 96% Christian, so that is not the case. We absolutely should start from scratch, but it doesn't take AfD to do that. - Biruitorul Talk 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate topic, but the article badly needs to be rewritten. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - basiocally agreeing with User:Genius101's comments above. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the article needs significant work, it is still a legitimate topic. BoomerAB (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That an article is badly written is not a reason to delete it; it's a reason to rewrite it. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No-one is denying that it's a legitimate topic, but who is going to rewrite such a mess? It's impossible to separate fact from opinion. Far better to begin again from scratch. andy (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  17:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. Article needs cleanup, but makes good fodder for a start. LK (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is notable, but needs a cleanup, which is not what AfD is for. T L Miles (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. topic is obviously notable, the article just needs to be rewritten. T-95 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep poorly written is not a reason for deletion. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep I would have closed this as a non-admin closure, as per WP:SNOW, but I am afraid there would be a WP:COI accusation due to my "day job." That being said, the subject is extremely important at many levels and it could be easily salvaged by anyone with knowledge of Haitian history and Christianity in the Caribbean. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to do that I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. But despite lots of fine words no-one has actually stepped forward to do it. It is no doubt a profoundly important subject but don't you think the fact that the actual article is utterly incoherent militates against its being kept? andy (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2009 (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.