Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Sabbath Adventists


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

High Sabbath Adventists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page appears to be largely a doctrinal essay for a small splinter group of the Seventh-day Adventists. I couldn't find any reference to them in the citations provided, and a recent set of self-published articles by the group was recently removed from the references by another user. None of my research has turned up anything to indicate they meet the criteria in WP:ORG. Bordwall( talk &frasl; ctrb ) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - none of the references seem to be about them. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree, it's simple propaganda. --Ron Ortiz T  C 09:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete article only here to promote their ideas. If there's any good content, possibly Merge with Seventh Day Adventists. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This appears to be a splinter of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), with slightly divergent theological views. If so, this is essentially a denomination.  What is not clear to me is whether this has a significant number of adherents.  If it has it should be kept, but if it is in fact a single local congregation, it should probably not be.  Since the main SDA movement apparently disavows them, merger to the SDA article, save by adding a list of schismatic SDA groups (with links) ought not to be an option.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2015 (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.