Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use


 * 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 speedy deleted as a copyright violation. GRBerry 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use

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

This article was created out of a content dispute at English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use. Editors were in dispute over whether to include the text of this newly proposed wording of the Nicene Creed. One editor pointed out that the article is specifically about "Current use", and since this new, disputed wording isn't in current use, it has no place in that article, which is why the new article was created for "possible future" use. First of all, that dispute may be settled, because the entire content of the new article is already at the old. On top of that, it doesn't seem appropriate to spin out content when there is only a single source that mentions this possible future use. I don't believe this possible future use is notable enough to warrant it's own article, and there doesn't appear to be other possible future uses outside of the ICEL recommendation. So the article's title is misleading in that it suggestions that multiple English translations will be discussed (only one is discussed), it doesn't make it clear that this is only for the Roman Catholic Church, and it doesn't state what "Creed" is being discussed. I believe this article was created in haste by an editor who was overly zealous to get this content somewhere in wikipedia (and I think now is a good time to mention that wikipedia is NOT a primary source). Finally, there have been some concerns regarding copyright in that a) the entire text is reproduced and b) there have been sources that have said that this text is not to be released to the public yet. I apologize if there is a lot of jargon or specialized knowledge required to examine this case. Andrew c [talk] 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyright violation from . This topic may well be worthy of discussion somewhere in Wikipedia, but not under this title (which sounds like attempting to predict the future), in this format, or in a way which violates copyright. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 21 May 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.