Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heresy in Christianity in the modern era


 * 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 delete. Grateful for the work of.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 12:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Heresy in Christianity in the modern era

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is mostly unsourced and I do not see it as having an encyclopedical value. I do not see how it is something else than an arbitrarily chosen (WP:OR) compilation or list of recent cases concerning Heresy in Christianity. Why are those people notable? The criterion are obscure and arbitrary. Is any person considered a heretic by their congregation (however small it may be) worthy of being mentioned? Is every trial for heresy, even those which ended up with the innocent verdict (Tony Campolo has his own section here), notable? Wikipedia would soon run out of server space if all those cases were added. "Walter Kenyon (Presbyterian, United States, 1974)" was allegedly (no source are given) refused ordination in a Presbyterian assembly after his refusal to ordain women. Is this latter case notable and why? The earliest case here is in 1893. There is no indication in the article of what modern era is supposed to mean when it comes to date, and the Wikipedia redirect defines it as what comes after 1500. Why is the date of 1893 used, can we go before? Most of the cases are unsourced, and some concern allegedly WP:BLP. I fail to see how the the classification and difference of "modern" and "non-modern" treatment of heretics among the whole Christendom is taken into account, because it is unclear if there is even a difference. In conclusion, this article is WP:OR and does not meet WP:GNG, therefore it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. Veverve (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by the nom (well, except about server space), especially because this contains some extremely alarmingly uncited BLP material that has managed to fly under the radar here because the article itself is not technically a BLP. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune -- This is essentially a list article, which has a validity of a kind, but there is a real BLP issue. There should in every case be a link to an article on the subject, which needs to comply with the BLP guidelines.  Those found innocent after an enquiry should not be listed; equally if the subject's explanation is that he has been misunderstood.  Being refused ordination shpould not be sufficient to merit inclusion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Heresy in Christianity and prune. As User:Peterkingiron said, there's some validity to the list itself, but I disagree with that "keep" because I think after it is pruned and cited appropriately, it will fit perfectly well within Heresy_in_Christianity; there's really no need for it to have its own page. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge makes the most sense, allowing accommodation of all the critique. 68.131.82.138 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: for the merge/keep folks and, any objections to me pulling out all the unsourced stuff now? Should give a better idea of what might get merged in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly no objections from me. If we can prune this list and start paring things down to where they should be, it could be that we'll find there's not much reason to keep/merge. Go for it. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've made no content decisions whatsoever (ie, I have not looked at the strength of any individual sources or the neutrality or notability of any of the content) and simply removed every person on the list for which there were zero inline citations. That leaves us with this diff: . We've lost all the Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutheran examples, and most of the others too - a total of six examples remain. I propose:
 * merge the bit on George Burman Foster to his article, which is pretty stubby
 * the bit on Tony Campolo is already in his article; no further action needed
 * Jon Sobrino's article deals with this already, in fuller detail; no further action needed
 * the Methodists: the only useful thing left, I think? Unfortunately we don't have a "heresy in Methodism" article to merge them to, and they don't appear to have articles of their own. I don't really think they belong in the Heresy in Christianity article (the 1520-present section is pretty brief and I don't think it would be significantly improved by the two additions, but someone might disagree here). I'm not terribly concerned about losing these two examples.
 * Don Stroud: a BLP violation in hiding, I'd say - I think this should be removed entirely.
 * So, still a delete vote from me overall, aside from the selective merge of George Burman Foster. I don't think we should keep the essay that is currently residing in the lead. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Enough original research and trivia that it warrants deletion. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: non encylclopaedic entry -as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2022 (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.