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 merge and redirect. I am performing the redirect, people should feel free to merge whatever, as the history is preserved behind the redirect. -- Y not? 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article violates NOR (no sourcing for third party sources or assertions of notability of content), and is a possible attack page. There are no citations to any third-party sources whatsoever for the majority of claims - the links that are in the article are to excerpts or official statements rather than sources of notability for the February 16tcontroversies. In general it seems these things are controversial only for non-Mormons, and not to the LDS Church, the same way Jesus isn't a savior for non-Christians (which doesn't make that a "Christian controversy"; in short, it requires a value judgment on the part of the reader being made for the reader, which is not what WP is about. A "Criticisms" article already exists. MSJapan 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just so it doesn't seem like this was out of the blue, it did sit for months - the last meaningful non-vandalism related edit (either way) was on January 20th, and the merger discussion has been open since last October with no apparent result. If sources were forthcoming, you would think someone would have gotten to it by now. MSJapan 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKirby, I certainly support your comments, but there is a discrepency between the this and the other article. This is essentially a Category parading as an article. There is not article to it; it is a list. It should be deleted and if someone wants to pen a controvery article, then first look at Criticism of Mormonism, Anti-Mormonism, or Mormonism and Christianity. The article that this is trying to be already exists. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that a similiar category page is under attack[2] for the implied reason that it disturbs a true belief to assemble Wikipedia articles under a common theme to address controversial historical claims that come from the same source. "Controversy" is a neutral and valid category that addresses disputed historical claims, not purely religious ones. It would be both POV and anti-historical to suppress it. Furthermore, controversies are established by linking the dispute itself, in whatever form it finds itself. Mormon editors here should state their potential conflict of interest, since some of them have implied that addressing a historical controversy tied to a religious belief is somehow in error. Anon166 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are talking about a Category, not an article. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2007 (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.
More