Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rapid Development


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Rapid Development

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article depends solely on a single primary source. There are no reliable secondary sources, that I can find, that even discuss this letter. Much of the article offers conjecture on what Pope JP meant, not on what he said. Many sections say "John Paul suggests....", which reeks of WP:OR. Also the notability of this single letter is unclear, especially given the lack of reliable secondary sources on the topic. Unless there are strong reliable sources that can back up the claims in this article and can offer insight into the subjects notability, the article should be deleted. JOJ Hutton  17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Article in its current state is a kind of summary--at best. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More than that, it reads like a book report. With the author offering sythesis of what John Paul meant without backing it up with any reliable sources. JOJ  Hutton  18:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Relying only on the primary text itself, any summarization or extraction of meaning can only be considered original research.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's not rely on the primary text then. We could go through the dozens if not hundreds of hits found in Google Books. Keep--of course this is notable by any of our standards (we can't delete this just because this is a terrible article right now). Drmies (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep yeah no problem, lots of Google Books and Category:Documents of the Catholic Church are often notable. Good work sourcing and improving. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This might be good to just userfy for the time being, as there's a bit of an issue with a teacher using Wikipedia as a school project. That in and of itself isn't exactly an issue, except that I've already had to warn the teacher about notability and neutrality in editing, which he seems to have mostly ignored. If this does survive AfD, it will need to be very, very closely monitored in order to ensure that the tone remains neutral and the sourcing doesn't become all primary sources. I've had to userfy a lot of articles created by the same group of users to the teacher's account in order to spare them from deletion discussions. I've been trying to get him to go through the school WP, but he hasn't signed up for that yet as far as I know. I'm stressing this because even if notability has been solved enough for this AfD, there will be multiple ongoing issues with neutrality and overall sourcing for various parts of the article. That's why I kind of think it'd be better to userfy this to the instructor's userspace (User:Moconnor1414) and let his students work on it. Once they're done, then it can be worked over to remove any of the bigger issues of neutrality, encyclopedic-ness, and sourcing that currently plague the article. I don't mean to sound bite-y, but this has a lot of issues with it that are going to remain and continue to be enlarged if we leave it in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Moconnor1414/The Rapid Development. Notability might be established, but since this is part of an ongoing school project I recommend that this be userfied for the reasons above. What we have here is a large group of editors (instructor included) that are largely unaware of how to edit Wikipedia or write in an encyclopedic fashion. As such, any non-sourcing issues will remain and run rampant. This could prove detrimental, as there's quite a bit of WP:OR going on. I say that we let them work it out in their userspace and then when they're done, edit it to fit the WP guidelines and re-add it to the mainspace. We could try to edit it now, but I have a feeling that it'd be an ongoing battle with the other editors to keep it within the other guidelines. I don't mean this to sound like I'm trying to WP:BITE them, just that they're not experienced with Wikipedia and it'd be in their best benefit to work on this in their userspace and learn editing guidelines in maybe a less harsh environment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have been happy to Userfy but the article is already much improved, thanks to Drmies. Keep Moconnor1414 (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with leaving it as it is. Is this going to be worked on more by students? There are two options: I come back to it in a couple of weeks and go through it, or I go through it when time permits and changes have happened. The latter is the strong medicine for your students: they may not like what I do, but if they pay attention they can learn something about Wikipedia editing. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong medicine is fine, thanks! (been getting plenty of that already). Moconnor1414 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A pontifical letter of this kind is certainly notable. Inevitably there is one source: the pope who issued it.  However the article should (and now does) cover commentary on it and reactions to it.  I am not a Catholic, and thus do not accept the pope's authority over me, but 100s of millions of people do.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many, many books discuss this pontifical letter. There seems to have been a failure of WP:BEFORE here. I see no reason to userfy or WP:BITE, either. -- 101.119.14.130 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (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.