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 speedy keep - great work by BigDT. FCYTravis 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an absolutely unorganized, unwikified, uncited mess. POV issues abound, there is no objective or critical analysis within the article. Suggest deletion or, failing that, complete overhaul. AscendedAnathema 00:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOR. --JChap 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR mess. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unstructured nonverifiable rubbish. SM247 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim to stub Keep and cleanup. I think there is an article in there, if it could be rebuilt, properly cited: 2,510,000 Ghits [1] suggest it's a notable concept. Tearlach 00:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and heavily cleanup; defiantly a notable subject as evidenced by the number of relevent Google results.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup, and expand scope. Notable topic in religious theory, including the Christian Right (i.e. Promise Keepers), Islam, Zoroastrianism and probably many others. (See also: "Three Crucial Questions About Spiritual Warfare".(Review). Don N. Howell Jr. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23.4 (Oct 1999). Schnarr, Grant. The Art of Spiritual Warfare: A Guide to Lasting Inner Peace Based on Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Quest: Theosophical. Aug. 2000. c.186p. ISBN 0-8356-0787-9. Massimini, Anthony T. "Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right." National Catholic Reporter 27.n8 (Dec 14, 1990): 23(2).) —Viriditas | Talk 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MPerel. There well may be a valid potential article with this title, but it would not include any of this. If someone wants to write such an article, they'd be better off starting from a blank slate. There is not even a salvageable stub here. Fan1967 01:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and revert per BigDT below. Fan1967 03:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 01:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Viriditas. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MPerel and Fan1967. This article is garbage. Imperator2 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this uncited POV mess. The+Invisible+Man 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article in its current state, it seems that much of the POV material has been removed.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and overhaul completely. The article was indeed terrible when it was nominated, but spiritual warfare is a fairly widely accepted Christian concept that I've heard of. Stubbing it was the right decision. flowersofnight (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Revert - take a look at this version of the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&oldid=54698032 . There was a very good article there, then in this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&diff=55170246&oldid=54698032 , User:Guillen completely replaced the article with his own original research. Can some admin wipe the history since that diff and replace it with the good version of the article? It looks like the old version was a sourced article with a long bibliography. It was replaced without comment. BigDT 03:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually, someone needs to go over all of User:Guillen's contributions - [2] - this topic Sankta lusse has zero google hits. This diff - [3] has some POV pushing. I assume good faith and this certainly is not overt vandalism ... but it looks like an issue that needs to be addressed in some fashion. But at any rate, as far as this AFD goes, my strong recommendation is that it be reverted to a good version of the article.
• Comment - I'm going to go ahead and be WP:BOLD and revert to the pre-Guillen version of the article. Is there anyone who would have an objection to a speedy keep since the trashy version of the article is no longer really an issue? BigDT 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have gone over a few of Guillen's other edits to other articles, none seem nearly as bad as his edits to this article so I think the good-faith assumption is a good one. I wish I had bothered to check out pre-Guillen versions of this article before nominating it for deletion, reverting it to the good article it used to be was the correct thing to do. AscendedAnathema 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going over them one by one ... his intro to Plymouth Brethren was a cut/paste from [4]. There was a wholly unreadable section in Bible translations, but it was unreadable before he got there. His changes to Saint Lucy are incoherent and I have removed them. He edited another user's comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth_Brethren&diff=55574372&oldid=55465850 . Again, this is a case of a newbie, not a case of anyone doing things in bad faith ... the edits just need to be looked over. BigDT 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have examined all of the aforementioned edits, reverted what needed to be reverted, fixed what needs to be fixed, etc. I have struck my comments that are outside the scope of this AFD. As far as the AFD goes, I reiterate my suggestion that we speedy keep since the article has now been reverted. BigDT 04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid encyclopaedic topic, cleanup. --Terence Ong 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After revert, Endorse Speedy Close per BigDT. Fan1967 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I tend to object to WP:NOR... because it means that only stuff that has been said by someone else can be said on wikipedia - defeating the whole purpose of the project which is that anyone can edit it. WP:NOR turns the project into a repository of things that the mainstream media has said, and one of the reasons i joined (b4 everyone was so fussed about NOR) wikipedia was to get away from the bias and POV of the mainstream media. I tend to think, along the same lines as the early wikipedians, that a large group of editors will produce a better article through collaboration, than a few people regurgitating what the media says. Anyway the articles good now with sources anyway. THE KING 05:23, 30 May 2006 (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.