Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian soldier

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Noting that the article was substantially changed during the debate, there is also no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian soldier

Christian soldier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I have several problems here. First, it's essentially a dictionary definition as-is. Secondly, the phrase "Christian soldier" has had and still has a wide variety of meanings. The second point is what worries me most. GHits, GNews and GScholar are conclusive about one thing: this phrase means whatever the utterer wants it to mean. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Results 1 - 10 of about 280,000 for "red scarf". (0.26 seconds) Word combinations do not prove notability. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was expecting an article on the expression from the hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers", which is not remotely connected to what is said in this article. Alternatively it could be about literal soldiers serving in a nation's armed services who happen to be of the Christian faith. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the one source cited does not support the article's one sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could see how there might be books written about this sort of thing, but I don't see any evidence this article envisions to be that. Really, I'm not sure exactly what the topic of this article is, other than a dictionary definition. Because this is articles for deletion, I support the above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Redirect to Hutaree, the Michigan militia group. The group says Hutaree means "Christian Soldier". Note that this is all a current event under development.  kgrr talk 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to redirect to Onward, Christian Soldiers. This is 1,000 times the more common connection. We should not let a tiny nut group define this expression. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be mentioned that there are millions of Christians serving in various armies in the world today and in history, literal "Christian soldiers." As well as millions of Christians who consider themselves "soldiers" in the "Army of Christ", who would never consider taking part in any terrorist activities. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have over 3 million articles and 99% of them are of less than good quality. We keep them in mainspace because this is our
    editing policy - readers will find them there and hopefully improve them. The suggestion that the conquest article is only a dictionary definition is wrong. There is plenty of room for expansion. The deletion +tag was posted when the article was only one day old! WritersCramp (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep There are many entries/items within Wikipedia that are not in the dictionary. As a trusted reference guide, I (and I assume others) use Wikipedia to understand items in the press. I don’t know this fundamentalist group, nor do I care to be part of it – I came to Wikipedia to understand it. It’s a shame that Wikipedia removed or deleted this item purely because of its popularity in the press and the accusations of this groups members. To make my point - “Charles Manson”, a convicted criminal has a Wikipedia entry and his name is not in any dictionary, can we delete that entry too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.63.131 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.230.63.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment To be frank, I don't know what you are trying to say here. Nothing you say seems to respond to my nomination or any of the other comments. Nowhere is anybody proposing that this article be removed because of its "popularity in the press" and "accusations of this groups members," nor do I think in nominating this I'm setting any form of precedent for removing an article on Charles Manson. So, in short... huh? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I posted a notice on Project Christianity to try to get more opinions here. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I completely agree on one key point -- there is very likely a place for an article of this type, on Christian militarism or what-have-you. My concern is with calling it "Christian soldier." I wouldn't even be comfortable with a redirect, because if you Google this phrase and read its history, it becomes very rapidly plain that it doesn't always -- doesn't even usually -- refer to militant attitudes in Christianity. Indeed, it seems to have been borne as a sort of ironic phrase, that a "Christian soldier" is one who advances Christian views in a Christian way, meaning peacefully. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there could should be articles on
Military metaphors in Christianity, and the Crusades and other historical efforts to spread Chrisianity "by the sword", maybe Christian imperialism? What is not needed is an article on the expression "Christian soldier" as used by a group of 10-12 people in Michigan. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Disambiguation is the only option aside from outright deletion that I personally think is reasonable, because it addresses most of my concerns. I share your concerns above that content to direct a disambig to either doesn't exist or exists in minimal form, currently. I also add to this a concern that such a disambig page could end up being a POV coatrack (for example, Christian Soldier really, really shouldn't redirect or disambiguate to Hutaree, in my opinion...that's not a generally accepted meaning or definition of the term). To be clear, I still favor deletion over disambiguation because I have concerns with disambiguation, but if consensus moves towards disambiguation I won't be crying in my beer. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig pages are easier to keep NPOV, because there is so little room for rhetoric. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly true in general. My concerns apply very specifically to this particular case. It seems to me a messy disambiguation page. Minimal rhetoric, certainly, is an advantage to this proposal, which is why it'd be my second consideration after outright deletion, which I still favor. Regardless, I respect the opinion! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is clear there is no consensus, so the best option is to leave the article and let it expand over time. WritersCramp (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or seriously re-work article from first sentence onwards. The combination of two such common words has a multiplicity of meanings, and the statement "is a person or group of people that believe in the use of force of arms to do Gods' work" is highly disputable. Quite apart from the fact that a group is unlikely to be called "A Christian soldier". PamD (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started the conversion to a disambig page. Revert or fix as you see fit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continued with that work. PamD (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The article, even after sincere efforts to improve it, is still misleading. When a person says "Christian soldier" 9 times out of 10 he is quoting "
    Christianity and war. There should be and it would be of top importance both in Project Christianity and Project History. But that is not a reason to save this article and hope that it grows to fill in the gap. Borock (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment The current state of the disambiguation effort demonstrates why I have such a problem with it. We have disambig links to Hutaree, which is a highly controversial disambiguation of the phrase "Christian soldier" to say the least (we're essentially letting an extremist group co-opt the phrase by their own assertion), to the Onward Christian Soldiers song (which I'd favor redirecting this article to instead of deletion, if consensus exists), and then to an array of non-violent Christian organizations that seem loosely, at best, connected with the phrase "Christian soldier" -- their connections exist either through the use of the word "Army" in the name (The Salvation Army) or usage of the word "soldier" in some of their founding principles. Either way, I don't understand or see as reasonable disambiguating to any of these.

    I think PamD's comment above really nails it for me. "The combination of two such common words has a multiplicity of meanings." Either way, my personal opinion is now basically 1) Redirect to Onward Christian Soldiers, 2) Delete, 3)Disambiguation. I don't think disambiguation is necessarily completely un-viable as an option, I just don't think it's useful and is potentially very troublesome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on above Original author has reverted article back to its original article form, which is certainly the editor's right. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be motivated by the spirit of recentism and seems to hold no real relevance except in the context of Onward Christian soldiers. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism: It seems ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb keeps deleting information from the article to support his deletion +tag. WritersCramp (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for assuming good faith. What a lousy thing to say. Check out the "vandalism" I just performed on the first paragraph, wherein I added content that might actually make some people reconsider outright deleting the article. I've included several of the various meanings the phrase can have, and repaired your sentence leading to your citation to accurately reflect the citation's contents, which in no way support defining Christian soldiers as "A
    force of arms to do Gods' work." That is simply nowhere in the citation.

    It is not vandalism to correct your sentence to reflect what your citation actually says, and I think you should retract this absurd accusation. It is not appreciated, nor is it warranted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Keep, as it's now a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note, above keep !vote refers to the disambiguation page version. The article is currently experiencing some edit-warring back and forth between article and disambiguation states. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the disambiguation page. Jll (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note, above keep !vote refers to the disambiguation page version. The article is currently experiencing some edit-warring back and forth between article and disambiguation states. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Christian soldier is an article not a disambiguation page. 10:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It has just been reverted back to a disambig page, a change which I endorse Jll (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to me that making it a disambig page addresses most of the comments above. It seems that User:WritersCramp is unhappy with that, but I'm not sure why. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambig page, with additions, especially
    Church militant and Christian militia (currently a redlink but badly in need of being a disambig page of its own, since it can refer to anything from Hutaree to civil war factions in Lebanon). Ginsengbomb's comments above make most of the essential points. Wareh (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep' That the phrase has multiple meanings and can be used in a variety of contexts is all the more reason to create an article explaining them -- especially since there is no simple single redirect available. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment That is certainly why we have dab pages. We don't have articles devoted to a variety of loosely-related topics that happen to share a name. We have disambiguation pages. If this ends up as a dab page (and this seems like the emerging consensus), I will definitely pay close attention to it, lest people start popping things like "Terrorist groups" and "Extremist militia" into the page. But that's content, not topic, so I don't forward that as an argument for deletion, just something I'll be looking out for. The phrase is so wishy-washy in terms of what it is supposed to mean that it makes for a potentially messy dab page, but that's something that can probably be addressed on an ongoing editorial basis. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_soldier&oldid=1136113119"