Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex-pastors


 * 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 userfy and delete. The page is already in LaughingVulcan's sandbox. Sr13 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex-pastors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is an essay rather than a Wikipedia article and almost certainly breaches WP:OR. The article does not have a world-wide view and would require a complete rewrite to bring up to Wikipedia standards.] Mattinbgn/talk 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn/talk 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an Encyclopedia not a psychological journal. Doc13mets 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does look like WP:OR. HeirloomGardener 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and non-encyclopedic. DES (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikify and Keep and possibly Rename or Redirect . Userfy as below.  I'm not sure why this qualifies as WP:OR.  The article is virtually unsourced in the article itself, but there are a list of 48 references, many of which do or appear to back up the article's text.  There is nothing in the article that appears earth-shockingly incorrect (though factually unreferenced and unsourced,) and I speak as one who has had professional experience with the subject.  User:Ron Cameron has offered to Wikify and clean up the Australian bias of the article, and I believe there should be some time to do so.
 * I'd ask the nominator to cite either here or on the article's talk page exactly which parts of the article are considered original research, as the facts are that ex-pastors do exist, some congregations do experience conflict and turmoil over a pastor's exit, and some former clergy do experience problems transitioning out of clerical life.  Laughing Vulcan  Laugh With Me /  Logical Entries 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article, while referencing sources, does so by drawing a number of sources together to create a document that advocates methods of resolving problems with ex-pastors, in a manner more like a research paper than an encyclopaedic article. It is more than a summary of existing knowledge and thus in my opinion breaches WP:OR.  Citing references alone does not mean it is not WP:OR, see WP:SYNTH for more information. The article as a whole is original research, not the individual components. The factual accuracy or otherwise of the information is irrelevant to the discussion and I am sure it is a problem, the same as ex-soldiers, ex-athletes, ex-politicians, ex-schoolteachers and ex-bus drivers. -- Mattinbgn/talk 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see what you mean about the tone being more of research paper than encyclopedia, and there are WP:SYNTH elements in the article as it exists. I still believe that there is merit in the article (and that there are elements which could be used either as a standalone article or elements integrated into existing articles.)  Though I do note (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that I wonder if the passengers of Bus #9 end up wondering if public transportation still exists when a particular driver quits. ;)  Thanks for the quick and illuminating reply.  I'm going to see if a quick rewrite is possible, or change my opinion.  Laughing Vulcan  Laugh With Me /   Logical Entries 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading back, my bus driver comment does sound a little facetious and I apologise. I will also add that like Kesh, I am not opposed to an article on the subject.  Perhaps the article as it exists could be moved to the creating editor's userspace and worked on there. -- Mattinbgn/talk 03:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I contacted both and  on their Talk pages.  I also cut-and-pasted the article text to a sandbox in my userspace.  Should neither of the above be interested in further edits to the article, I'll work on it in my userspace.  Given the current state of the article, I wouldn't move it unless the creator feels differently (also, the article had only the creation edit at last check.)  If the author or any other party would rather take it, that's fine by me.
 * And I did take the bus driver example facetiously and with much humor. No apology necessary from here.  Laughing Vulcan  Laugh With Me /   Logical Entries 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Userfy per LaughingVulcan. The entire page is original research and written as an essay. While the topic could be a good Wikipedia article, it would require completely scrapping this page and starting over from scratch. Some of the sources could be very useful in creating an encyclopedic article, but as it stands this page would have to be torn down and started over completely. -- Kesh 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per LaughingVulcan's comments above, I would support moving this to User space to be rewritten. -- Kesh 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a well-written piece but it constitutes original research. It also violates WP:NOT in that it appears to be advice to churches on how to keep their pastors from becoming ex-pastors (although why they would find this article, under this title, is not clear). A paragraph or so in clergy could cover the important points.--Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete from mainspace - Actually a very good essay (I'm familiar with the topic) but totally belongs in the contributor's userspace, not in mainspace. Note that I am opposed to its *removal* per se. Orderinchaos 13:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Mattinbgn and Orderinchaos. There is not much OR in this; its just not written in an encyclopedic manner.  Hopefully  is still with us. John Vandenberg 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Userify. This OR essay does not belong in mainspace.  Lankiveil 02:29, 26 May 2007 (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.