Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspiration of Ellen G. White

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration of Ellen G. White

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As advocated by Wctrenchard. Note that I don't agree with them, since deletion is not cleanup. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comprehensively sourced article, clearly dealing with 'a thing'. As noted by nom, AfD isn't cleanup and sending an article to deletion on the basis of one user's issue with the tags on it isn't going to work, IMHO. Not sure why said user isn't just, well, cleaning it up themselves! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course, I or someone else could "cleanup" this piece, but that is not the point. Not every "thing" deserves a Wiki article. The main issue is that no matter how this is cleaned up, it will still be an unacceptable, theological apology concerning the "inspiration" and religious authority of a particular 19th century person. You should note that the only other apparent "inspiration" article like this is "Inspiration of the Bible"! There is not even a counterpart for Joseph Smith -- and appropriately so. If something about this needs to be said somewhere, I will be happy to add a sentence or two to the bio article on Ellen White. Wctrenchard (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply stating with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV what the SDA Church believes is not apologetics. And we also let its critics have their say. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The info could be put on Ellen White even though it's not needed there Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So, let me try to trace the lineage of what's going on here. Wctrenchard noted on the article's talk page that there were a couple maintenance tags, and... it is now at AfD? Even though the nominator doesn't support deletion? Why are we even here? jp×g 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wonder whegter this should not be repurposed as Theology of Ellen G. White. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well sourced article on a topic that has been the subject of debate in multiple reliable sources. Note that sources that show scepticism of the subject are already included in the article so neutrality is shown, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced, of historical significance. This should never have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One could argue that the grouping of several issues is WP:SYNTH, but I think the reader benefits from the context of a combined article. As an aside, Writings of Ellen G. White would be a more neutral title and could provide a clearer distinction of what goes here and what does in Ellen G. White. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:31, 13 July 2022 (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.