Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Schweizer Confession


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New Schweizer Confession

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

delete – this is a document of a non-notable church. The church's page has already been deleted for not indicating significance. ✤ JonHarder talk 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiSource and delete. Wikipedia isn't a place to store documents, especially if the discussed subjects aren't of particular notability. Celarnor Talk to me  15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a source text. It is a short article about a religious text. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes. Transwiki the text of the document to WikiSource, as it is old enough to public domain, and delete the article.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – the document is presented as a 2008 revision of a 1977 translation, which would not be public domain. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if "transwiki" makes sense for content that is not now on Wikipedia, unless you're talking about the original Schleitheim Confession, there's nothing to indicate that this is a public domain document. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, no idea what I was thinking there. Too early in the morning.  I thought it WAS the original.  Obviously not... Celarnor Talk to me  00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Luk suh


 * Delete, may be worth mentioning in an article on the Isaric Anabaptist sect, but that seems too tiny for more than a mention in Anabaptist, if that. That article has just had a section on "Neo-Anabaptism" removed for remaining unsourced. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a stub. The English version of the confession is a link not part of the article, so that there is no question of a copyright violation.  Nt first reacion was that it seemed a harmless little article.  However the church behind it seems to be a splinter group less than two months old, probably with one congregation that has seceded from the Southern Baptists and a minster who calls himslef a bishop.  This is clearly a NN church.  Hence their "confession" is also NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 11 April 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.