Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shout voice trump


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Shout voice trump
Non notable religious theory. The user that created it, named User:Shout Voice Trump, has had exact copies of this pasted on his user page and user talk page, so it comes off as spam for the referenced website in the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. CDThieme 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NPOV original research. --Nick 05:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The user, being me, accidentally put it on the user page and user talk page trying to learn how this all works. The doctrine is not a just a religious theory but is a world wide group of people whose uniqueness is of great interest in all seminaries and theological studies. I will go to my talk/user page and figure out how they work. 23:12, 6 December 2005 postscript: I just left a better synopsis of this article at your, Mr. Gustafson's talk page. Slowly I am figuring this out. Thanks for your overview.

--- If an individual is not of seminary or theological background, this article may seem trite. However, within the large religious community this article is a vital resource for understanding this group of people. ---

Here is a copy of what I submitted to Mr. Gustafson:

Hello, Hope this is the proper spot. I have just started working on an entry on shout voice trump. Having studied the Rapture doctrines and seminary theology, this doctrine is unique because it involves people instead of belief. This doctrine is actually a large group of people worldwide. I have been researching it and currently have added some of the basic reference links I was directed to.

Your comments about user page and talk page need clarified. It took me awhile to figure out how Wikipedia works. I finally signed up with a username that would match the article title thinking that was proper. Then I tried to create the page accidentally on the user and talk pages.

Thank you for your considerations as I continue to expand on this group of individuals. You could say, that just as there are Methodists or Catholics, there are now a group of people who are Shout Voice Trump'ers for lack of an official title. I have had trouble finding clear resources and considered building a website but have now decided that the quality of Wikipedia would be the best choice for consolidating information for the research community. Above unsigned comments from User:24.151.228.4 aka User:Shout Voice Trump.


 * Keep - I am convinced that it is a genuine good faith attempt at an article. There are references that help to support the article's point of view.  There are issues relating to its notability (36 google hits) and the way in which the article is written.  It is clear from the history that the author is trying to make the article as good a quality as he possibly can.  But the AFD was put on the article almost immediately on creation.  I believe that, as with all but nonsense articles, an article should be given a good chance to develop, say perhaps 1 month, and then we can judge.  It is too early to really say one way or the other.  So for the moment I am saying keep. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We could let this fester here for a year, the article could grow to featured quality, and that would not change the fact that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, period. You said it yourself: 36 google hits.  No wikipedia article of any quality will change that.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete if this really is a worldwide group of people, they're awfully quiet about it. I'm getting just 24 unique Google hits.  Not ready for an article yet. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, look at it this way, Wikipedia would be one of the main sources for research on this topic. Also, at Google type in shout voice trump without quotes, 237,000, and you will see the validity of interest in this scripture and interpretations, which I plan to include. ie: other interpretations, rebuttals, size of movement... I found one site WMB1.com that shows church groups worldwide. It has also been translated and distributed throughout the world. Here is a quote from Bibleway.org "To the millions of believers around the world who have heard and received the Message which God has sent through His prophet, William Branham..." From the same site, India alone has had over 2,000,000 books printed. From my research it looks like the move has turned from who William Branham was to what his message, I Thessalonians 4:13-18, has produced.
 * From Author: Type in William Branham, the author of this movement and you get 291,000 hits at Google. As I previously mentioned, there is no official title for this group of individuals.  (Branch Davidians at google is 200,000 hits.)

Comments from User:24.151.228.4 User:Shout Voice Trump.


 * Suggest merger with the William M. Branham article. I have no doubt that this is a good faith attempt at an article.  Google, on the other hand, yields 3 pages of results for "shout voice trump", none of which seem to identify a particular body of followers.  While the teachings are worthy of an NPOV article, not sure these three words are the best choice for a title.  The phrase itself is not something that is likely to be searched for.  External links in the article also identify Branham's name, not "shout voice trump," as the common thread.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete until it gets bigger or more notable for some other reason. -- Kjkolb 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient notability, per Andrew. Eusebeus 07:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From Author: Looks like I've been outvoted. This has been a good learning experience and I appreciate the moderator/editors close watch on Wiki to keep it a valuable Internet resource.


 * Keep if given a major clean-up. Also needs a new title.  The current one doesn't make sense.  If this group has no official name perhaps the article can be called Branhamism.  Logophile 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot name something that doesn't have a name, that's Original Research. CDThieme 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion is made that this religious movement/doctrine/whatever ever made any impact. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for the promulgation of religious dogma. Pilatus 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral No place for dogma discussions, but I am familiar with this group and they have made a worldwide impact. For one, Oral Roberts ministry was inspired by their founder. I talked to one and he said just call us Christians. hmmm.  (forgot to signin sorry)
 * Strong Keep. See no valid reason for delete. File under biting the newbies. -- JJay 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "No valid reason for delete"? Then you clearly do not seem to grasp deletion policy.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I could never clearly seem to grasp things as well as you. Thanks for the kind remarks. -- JJay 04:23, 13 December 2005 (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.