Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soldier's Covenant


 * 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 redirect to The Salvation Army. ansh 666 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Soldier's Covenant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no indication that the Salvation Army's articles of faith are notable. Coverage in independent sources is scarce and mostly amounts to "They exist, are called 'Soldier's Covenant' and sum up the Salvation Army's doctrines". That's the best I could find via Google Books, Google Scholar is even less helpful. The article cites no independent sources whatsoever. Huon (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep . Article needs a lot of work, but I am seeing some discussion in academic sources. Note that this document was known as the "Articles of War" until 2010, and so nearly all scholarship will refer to that name. I'll try to provide a cleanup and sourcing pass, but probably can't get to it till early in the week. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Salvation Army per Tim Templeton. There ARE more sources than are currently in use there, and there really is a little bit more that we could say on the topic. But the emphasis is on little, and I see no reason to make a terrible stub here when we can just present the information in context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - would you mind sharing what those sources are (and how you found them)? I found nothing of that sort. An appendix giving the Soldier's Covenant is hardly discussion. Huon (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing that looks promising is: There's sometimes an art to this sort of thing, but if I can't get a handful of viable sources by mid-week, I'll retract my !vote in favor of a merger. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge into existing article soldier(of the Salvation Army) I've already quoted from the 2018 Salvation Army year book why the Soldiers Covenant is notable, but let me repeat for those unfamiliar with my previous definition:
 * Soldiers Covenant: The statement of beliefs and promises which every intending soldier is required to sign before enrolment. :Previously called Articles of War source: page 20, Salvation Army year book 2018 ISBN978-1-911149-40-8(paperback) and 978-1-911149-41-5(e-book)
 * Proposal for deletion without incorporating the text into soldier(of the Salvation Army) is considered a mendacious attempt to eviscerate from wikipedia anything that doesn't contain some criticism of the Salvation Army Adrian816 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * comment withdrawn

Adrian816 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment By "articles of faith" I mean the Soldier's Covenant, roughly in line with one of the few secondary sources I could find that so much as mention it: "Is there a statement of faith (SOF)? There's a statement of faith, but it's not called that. Keeping things military, the Salvation Army calls it the Soldier's Covenant (or the Articles of War)". I accidentally mixed up "Articles of War" and "statement of faith". I'd like to see an explanation how that could be taken as a personal attack (against what person?), even if I had referred to the Handbook of Doctrine instead of the Soldier's Covenant. Since that's not relevant to whether or not the article should be kept, merged or deleted (and there currently is no content based on secondary sources, so nothing worthy of being merged), we should move that part of the discussion elsewhere. Huon (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Pulling the Devil's Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain is another source; isn't independent but is substantial.  I'm neutral on a merge with Soldier (The Salvation Army). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge as described above, as has coverage in rs books Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * comment withdrawn Adrian816 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into Salvation Army. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the info already available on the Salvation Army's website? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete We need references to significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources to establish the notability of a topic. In this case, no source affiliated with the Salvation Army is acceptable for determining the notability of this topic. I believe that the advice in the essay Avoid mission statements is excellent and applicable to this case. In addition, about half of the content of this article is copied directly from a copyrighted website. Accordingly, this should be deleted per WP:COPYVIO. This covenant or "articles of war" can be covered with originally written and properly referenced content in the main article., your aggressive and combative remarks are completely out of line. I recommend that you withdraw them. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lede is now reliably & independently sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not just this, but also need review of the user Adrian816's continued additions of info to other Salvation Army topics using Salvation Army as the source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the creed of a significant denomination. Note that we have a List of Christian creeds.   I have rewritten and sourced the  lede it to reliable newspapers articles, but a deeper and more nuanced article can certainly be written using sources including Like a Mighty Army?: The Salvation Army, the Church, and the Churches, By David W. Taylor.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Salvation Army. I already merged the lede info there.  Since the content section is unsourced, there's no indication that the actual verbiage is necessary.  Put another way, would we put the text of the bible in the bible article? Too much intricate detail. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Salvation Army. Good solution by Tim Templeton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2018 (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.