Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status of religious freedom in Canada


 * 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The result of the nomination was Withdrawn from AfD process by CJCurrie.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in Canada
This afd has been withdrawn. CJCurrie 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Until recently, this page was a harmless redirect. Now, it's a POV/OR rant arguing that recent advances in gay rights are an affront to religious liberty. (Click here for the changeover.) I don't any compelling need for an article on a topic this subjective. CJCurrie 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the afd, with a recommendation that the page be radically rewritten. CJCurrie 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Recommendation not accepted. Do we need to write every Canadian article like it was drafted by Jack Layton himself? Leave the afd and let it be debated with an international audience. Deet 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You aren't required to accept the recommendation, but it's immaterial to the afd being closed. CJCurrie 03:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per nom, violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Ardenn  02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Previous redirect is irrelevant. Bible as potential hate literature is highly relevant. Issues like Peter and Murray Corren have a very high google hit count. Left-wing Canadian Wikipedian bias showing through again with this request. Deet 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, provided a rewrite which removes the focus of LBGT rights from the article. When constrasting this article with articles of the same category dealing with democratic countries, this one reads like a call to arms while the others (such as Status of religious freedom in the United States) are succinct and factual.  Fabricationary 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * '''Keep I total agree with Fabricationary

I also think there might be too much LBGT stuff me and Deet have been arguing the point for a bit today he decide to put his piece up it was a surprise hehe.

I can prove what I say in Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada User:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada but wasn’t ready to post it yet.

Canada is special in that it supports religious schools and the church objects to same sex marriage’s so I feel there should be a section on that

I have no problem with deleting any of the bullet points you like

I do have a problem with keeping haskett she was not acting from OFFICAL church view (I get that a lot of people think that god say hate gays but that not the current and office view).Ansolin 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Would you be open to the possibility of reverting the page to a redirect? CJCurrie 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why would we have the article topic for some countries, but not Canada? It's part of a global template. Deet 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems you're correct. I wasn't aware of the other national pages when I created the afd, but I understand the motivation of keeping it now.  I'm withdrawing the afd, accordingly.  I would recommend that you take Fabrictionary's comments to heart, however: the page isn't even close to neutral in its current form, and needs radical revisions to be brought up to Wikipedia standards.  CJCurrie 02:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it can be written in a neutral way, like Fabricationary suggested, no problems will come. Ardenn  02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to delete and redirect, but I want the history gone. Ardenn  02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the article is right now, I see no reason to delete, but it's mostly a collection of facts, and needs more rewriting. --Usgnus 02:55, 15 July 2006 (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.