Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credenda/Agenda

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

I was trolling the New Pages and saw this come in. Nothing against our having articles on religious mags, but this one appears "when funds permit." Very minor, parish-derived publication. Geogre 19:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) '''Note: the article name contains a slash, so this may make the above link fail to work and cause folks to have to type it in. Sorry.'''Geogre 20:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note, however, that "when funds permit" was a factual error that has been corrected; the article has been expanded, to explain its exact relevance to the encyclopedia. Daniel Josph Xhan


 * Show me that it's really "infamous" and I'll switch my vote. -- orthogonal 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll invest all my time and energy over the next few days doing just that :) Daniel Josph Xhan
 * Well, The article makes that claim. If it's ok that the claim can't be verified, well, let me mention that orthogonal is the True Pope, and is selling the Brooklyn Bridge at a low, low price. -- orthogonal 21:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I was kidding around. On the other hand, would you like me to mail you the evidence? I'm just wondering. Because for all I know, there's an abundance of sites claiming that Orthogonal is indeed the true pope, all of which are wrong. On the other hand, I've changed the wording. It was a bit too strong. Infamous? Maybe not. Well knows? Yes. Especially since the magazine's editor (Wilson) was declared a heritic for his New Perspective on Paul stance. Do a Google search for Douglas Wilson + Heretic or Douglas Wilson + RPCUS if you wish. This may not seem a particularly big deal to you, but this is something that is very rarely done in Presbyterian circles, and the PRCUS is affilliates with the RPCNA, PCA, PCUSA, etc etc. Ripple effect.
 * I'm sorry, I was unclear. It's not essential that I know this; it's essential that the article either provides evidence for its claims or does not make those claims. But if the publication is not "infamous" then it's probably not notable either. If it's not notable, it doesn't belong here. -- orthogonal 22:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely on your perspective, I would imagine. I can't imagine several of the articles on obscure programming languages I have seen on WP being notable to anyone but people programming in obscure languages or people interested in the history of obscure languages. That is to say that Credenda/Agenda might not be notable to you, or to Joe Sixpack off the street, but it is notable to a large section of Fundimentalist Christians. Although if you were to say that the name "Douglas Wilson" is more recognizable to Joe Christian than "Credenda", then yes, I would agree. Perhaps my efforts should be channeled more toward those ends, since Douglas Wilson is infamous, and very much so. --DanielJosphXhan 22:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: many voters re-examine at the end of the 5 day VfD period. Please feel free to improve the article throughout that time period, and all those who come to this page who have any knowledge will, I am sure, do the same. Geogre 01:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. When funds permit. -- orthogonal 19:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. Livajo 19:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete if not made comprehensible. If this paper is controversial than the article should at least give details why or point to other Wikipedia or provide external links or something. Probably indeed what would be better in Wikipedia is the suggested Douglas Wilson article.  Jallan 22:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep in current form. This is one of the better made Christian webzines.  The business about its appearing "when funds permit" was, I suspect, self-deprecating humour quoting from the site itself.   It has in fact appeared fairly regularly for quite some time.  Smerdis of Tlön 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't have heard of this debate. Google, on the other hand, does appear to have done, a couple of thousand pages on the title mentioned in the article, so perhaps there's an article in there somewhere - whether it should be on the publication or the individual I'm not sure. No vote as yet. Average Earthman 10:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but more really needs to be written about the nature of the controversy.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-notable. Delete. The Land 09:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.