Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danvers Statement


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure), retracted by nominator. Multiple sources exist, other problems can be solved by editing the page. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Danvers Statement

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

Wikipedia is not a mirror of the CBMW website (WP:NOTMIRROR). Also, not notable. Wronkiew (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 6 Google News hits, 60 Google Books hits inc. a 50 word entry in "Encyclopedia of evangelicalism" by Randall Herbert Balmer, 36 Google Scholar hits. The full text of the statement is not encyclopedic, however printed encyclopedia often include large slabs of text like this, and Wikipedia has no reason to exclude something like this when it is useful.  There is ample introduction to this Wikipedia article, and more sources can be added. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting comparison: "Chicago Statement on Inerrancy", produced by International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, only returns 16 Google Book hits, and 10 Google Scholar hits.  The ICBI is definitely notable, and I suspect that the three statements they produced are all separately notable too. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it can support extended text when necessary. However, the guideline you quoted makes an exception for content that violates the five pillars. Including the full text of the statement on this page goes against two of the pillars. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). It is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP). It is free content (WP:C), and, as mentioned below, this content cannot be edited without infringing on someone else's license. Perhaps the text of the statement could be excised from the article. However, without the actual text, it would be impossible for the average reader to figure out what the statement was about. The Encyclopedia of Evangelicism, another thing Wikipedia is not, contains a much better explanation of the statement without including the statement itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronkiew (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you SineBot. Wronkiew (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt mind if the statement was removed. You say that "without the actual text, it would be impossible for the average reader to figure out what the statement was about", and then say "The Encyclopedia of Evangelicism ... contains a much better explanation of the statement without including the statement itself".  They cant both be true.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of Evangelicism, and an encyclopedia of Pokemon, and an encyclopedia of US towns with less than 100 residents, and other stuff too. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I contend that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of Pokemon, and just because we have an article about something less notable does not mean that this article is worth keeping. However, on further reflection, the Encyclopedia of Evangeliscism is probably a reliable source, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. I still think the text of the declaration should be removed from the page. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable - the "news" hits reported above are hardly the "mainstream news organisations" asked for in WP:RS (excamples given are "The Washington Post", "The Times" and "The Associated Press" - I can't see that the "Raleigh Biblical Recorder" would be held in such high esteem!) -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is the book and scholar results that matter, not the news hits - they are irrelevant for this topic. Most significantly, the existing dead tree encyclopedia entry John Vanderberg linked to above is enough in and of itself to demonstrate that the subject can support an encyclopedia entry.  The full text of the statement should not be here; if the license is strong enough it could be transwiki'ed to Wikisource. GRBerry 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Copying (or moving) to Wikisource sounds like a good idea. Does the document fit Wikisource criteria? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It would be nice to have this on Wikisource, but the permission given on the website doesnt extend to altering the text, so it is not considered free content.  See Freedom Defined.  The missing freedom is to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works.  Perhaps someone could persuade them to release it under the terms of CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or explicitly put it into the public domain. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs expansion, and could very appropriately be tagged as such. It needs more info on its reaction, opponents, etc., but it fundamentally belongs in Wikipedia.  I don't see any pillars being violated here. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2008 (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.