Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Cross, No Crown


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  02:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No Cross, No Crown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BKCRIT. There's not much in here that's not already covered in, or could easily be moved to, the main article about William Penn. Prof. Mc (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I have merged the info from No Cross, No Crown into the article on William Penn. Prof. Mc (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: So far I haven't found a lot of content that focuses on this writing specifically, which is slightly surprising given that Penn's article claims that this is one of his classic works. It's been repeatedly reprinted again and again since its initial creation, but when it is covered it tends to be in relation to Penn himself. Offhand I'm leaning towards a redirect with the history intact in the hopes that it could be restored one day if/when the coverage is found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm having trouble with this one, because the title of the book appears to have been adopted as a subsequent slogan--or perhaps was already in popular use as such before Penn titled the book--and specific coverage of this particular book is not obvious. Tentatively merging should be fine, because there's really no reason the entire text of the article can't be covered in the parent article, but I see no reason why it couldn't also be split back out if a larger article can be written on the book itself. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect -- I suspect that the Quakers may regard this as one of their early devotional works. I thus suspect it is a significant work.  However this article does not say much that does not already appear in the article on William Penn; indeed that is if anything rather better.  There is nothing to merge, but we might redirect to William Penn - section Persecutions, and categorise it as a redirect with possibilities.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. famous book.,and famous slogan based on the book. There's no pt merging in somethignthat can be so easily expanded. Article are expected to grow.  DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of Penn's most famous works. Neither deletion or merging would make sense. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's notable Christian literature. See also https://archive.org/details/nocrossnocrown00penn Bpc.sg (talk)
 * Keep, added scholarly edition to article. A JSTOR search validates significance of text, for any editors with lingering doubts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per all the above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:25, 7 July 2016 (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.