Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Seventh-day Adventist freedom of religion in Canada


 * 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. PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

History of Seventh-day Adventist freedom of religion in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about the history of religious freedom in Canada specifically as it relates to the Seventh-Day Adventists. As is made clear by all the primary sources in the article. Which includes a lot of references to Canadian laws about "religion", not Seventh-day Adventists per say, and quotes from the bible. Which really have nothing to do with them in particular, any more then it would for any other Christian denomination. Therefore, I think his article should either be deleted. Or at least whatever little content that might be relevant and worth saving could merged with Freedom of religion in Canada.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge This appears to be in the form of a WP:SPINOFF from History of freedom of religion in Canada and it does contain referenced material not in the parent article. E.g. the 1904 Lornedale Academy Workers arrests. Accordingly, it should either be merged to the parent or kept. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep --this is well referenced, meets GNG, and is too detailed for a merge in my opinion--but feel free to create more articles for other religions in Canada.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what articles about other religions in Canada have to do with it, but I think it would be more then short enough to merge once the stuff that isn't specific to the Seventh-day Adventists and information taken from un-reliable primary sources is removed from the article. A lot of those sources are what make up a lot of what your claiming is "well referenced" about the article. There's nothing well referenced about an article where 99% of the references are primary and mostly to the same source. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything pertaining to Sunday legislation in the Anglosphere is sufficiently specific to Seventh-day Adventists during the relevant parts of the 19th and 20th centuries. You'd have to either have been an Adventist or have some sort of experience paging through relevant old periodical stacks to know this from your background knowledge. Your claim that it is not specific to Adventists appears to be incorrect; little of the article should be considered nonspecific.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just doing a basic glance at the artice there's the section on World Calendar Reform. Which is neither specific to Seventh-day Advetists or really has anything specific to do with Canada either. It actually really had nothing to do with freedom of religion. Let alone vould you call it "Seventh-day Adventist history." That's a whole section. Your claim that its that its specific to Seventh-day Adventists or that I'd have to be one to know all that is completely ridiculous. Same goes for much of the other topics in the article. For instance Lord's Day Acts have been passed all over the world, so its not a "Canada thing" and had nothing specific to do with Seventh-day Adventist except that they are one of many religions groups that do observe Sunday and they decided to get involved in it, but many groups did. So again its "Seventh-Day Adventist religious Canadian history." The laws effected even non-religious people. It would be the same for any global event that effected pretty much anyone. You could argue WW2 was Seventh-Day Adventist religious Canadian history if you wanted to ne that broad about it. That's not how Wikipedia and notability works though and I don't need to be a Seventh-day Adventist to know it. Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Restructure -- The Adventists have the practice of observing a sabbath on Saturday, whereas the rest of Christendom observes the Lord's Day on Sunday. I would prefer to see this restructured into an article on Lord's Day observance in Canada, which could then instance the Adventists falling foul of this as an example.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Adamant1 says that Seventh-day Adventists are "one of many religious groups that do observe Sunday". This is incorrect. The Seventh-day Adventists observe Saturday; that's pretty much their distinguishing feature. The Lord's Day Acts had special significance to Seventh-day Adventists, so Adamant1's argument that this information is irrelevant is based on a false premise. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The Seventh-day Adventist church was cited in the court decision that repealed the Lord's Day Act, a fairly significant judicial decision in Canadian history. As such, an article on Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty in Canada meets notability requirements, and this article lists numerous instances that were a prelude up to that court decision. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epiphyllumlover this is well referenced, meets GNG, and is too detailed for a merge.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:26, 24 July 2020 (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.