Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Role of churches in liberation struggle


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Role of churches in liberation struggle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unsourced personal essay, with POV and original research issues. The topic may actually be worth having an article on, but this isn't it: the sensible thing to do would be to blow it up and start over. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 22:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Surely this is a notable topic, but the content is quite hopelessly POV against the RSA government's position, and the overall tone is definitely not encyclopedic.  A good way to decide when content is too far gone is to consider the benefits of the current page for someone who's going to write a decent article — when there's truly very little salvageable, you're going to have to do a complete rewrite, so there's no point in keeping.  I can't imagine a good reason to keep any of the current text, so explode per the nomination's suggestion.  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with the TNT proposal. This is an assignment for School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia that was placed in main space instead of user space. However, I am pretty sure that most of the content could be referenced, and considering that South Africa was illegally occupying Namibia at that time I do not see much POV: That missionaries supported the colonisation of Africa is a well-established, if not mainstream, scientific theory, and certainly the viewpoints of the apartheid regime, violating several UN resolutions, do not need to receive extensive coverage. --Pgallert (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2012 (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.