Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Manifesto
From 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 delete. Neil ☎ 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- London Manifesto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I can find no historical record of this event being described as the "London Manifesto." While such a meeting of preachers clearly did take place, the significance or notability of an erroneous statement (The Revelation of the Lord may be expected at any moment) by 8 ministers, 90yrs ago is not clear. What was a minor news story in 1917 is not a notable event. The only secondary source I can find giving it significance is this propaganda piece promoting the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. In short, it fails multiple, independent reliable sources establishing notability. Rockpocket 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was notable enough for the Federal Communications Commission to quote it 16 years later. I think that Padraig and Clio should reconsider their votes. Communications Commission: Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce The manifesto was a big deal in 1918 and afterwards. It's inclusion in the collective knowledge of Wikipedia advances the understanding of people's attitudes towards End of Days, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Zionism during a formative and important part of history. Additionally many of these preachers are still discussed on the internet. Their assertions are of interest if they were ever to be written up in Wikipedia. If the article needs a name change then that is a different matter than a deletion. SV 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Padraig 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, yes. Please see my response to the 'Manifesto' question on the Humanities Reference Desk for 11 October. There is something not quite right here. The whole thing seems entirely self-referential. Clio the Muse 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Those who signed this Manifesto were well known names, and are among the world's greatest preachers. In additon, this information was published in the book "Deliverance" (page 263) in 1926 by the International Bible Students Association. --Searchfortruths 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, don't know about this, but account's only and today's contribs are to the article in question and to this AfD. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Advent Testimony Movement then merge into Frederick Brotherton Meyer.—eric 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It dosen't make sense to move it to Frederick Brotherton Meyer because he is only one of the 8 men who signed the manifesto. It would put too much emphasis on one person, and not enough emphasis on the manifesto itself. --Searchfortruths 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meyer was the founder and chairman of the movement, the most prominent signer, and the manifesto was published in his own newspaper. I really don't think there is enough here for a stand-alone article (tho someone might be able to make a case around item #4), but a description of the movement and manifesto should go into Meyer's biography, which also fails to mention his views on eugenics.—eric 08:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would moving to Meyer help other articles such as End of Days, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Zionism in which I've currently referenced the London Manifesto? What would that look like? I'm thinking it might be better to keep it separate under ATM. SV 08:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran across one ambiguously worded footnote which hints that this might be important to Christian Zionism—why i mentioned #4 above—but that's not enough for an article or all the links you've been creating. If the article is moved and merged, the edit history will be preserved, there'll be a redirect for those searching for 'Advent Testimony Movement', and you can expand the text within the Meyer article as you find reliable sources. Try Randall, I. M. (2003). Spirituality and Social Change: the contribution of F.B. Meyer (1847-1929). OCLC 54994480.—eric 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out the other links because they are on topics other than #4. And there is adequate sourcing for them as well. SV 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran across one ambiguously worded footnote which hints that this might be important to Christian Zionism—why i mentioned #4 above—but that's not enough for an article or all the links you've been creating. If the article is moved and merged, the edit history will be preserved, there'll be a redirect for those searching for 'Advent Testimony Movement', and you can expand the text within the Meyer article as you find reliable sources. Try Randall, I. M. (2003). Spirituality and Social Change: the contribution of F.B. Meyer (1847-1929). OCLC 54994480.—eric 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would moving to Meyer help other articles such as End of Days, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Zionism in which I've currently referenced the London Manifesto? What would that look like? I'm thinking it might be better to keep it separate under ATM. SV 08:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moveto Advent Testimony Movement. More Historical Background: [1] SV 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Adequate notability and sourcing. It seems quite satisfactory as a separate article - if it works, don't fix it. Colonel Warden
- Transwiki to Wikisource. This is not an article about an event, it's an original text with a few annotations. Unless we have an article that's about this there's nothing to keep as Wikipedia is not a repository. --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair criticism but this is a new article and there's so much more info to add. I think we should let the editors have a chance to finish. SV 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is kind of the point, I'm not aware sure there is that much more info to add. I'm all for moving the relevant info into an appropriate article, but there is little point in keeping this particular article (since I can find no record of it being called the London Manifesto). Rockpocket 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does an article have to emerge fully formed? You're demanding that the London Manifesto be deleted because it's not fully formed and you've never heard of it. Plenty of other articles are stubs and I bet there's lots you've never heard about and won't find much info just with a casual internet search. I think that the WHOLE point of wikipedia is to advance it's collection of human knowledge by crowd casting. You and I might not have all the info but eric found a whole bunch more and there's a lot more to find out there. Just give it time. Let the Wiki crowd do what it's supposed to. SV 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be fully formed, but - when I nominated - it was was essentially a quote from a 1917 newspaper under a title that was not even mentioned in the single source. No-one has provided any evidence that there is any such thing as the 1917 "London Manifesto" (as opposed to the 1921 document from the Pan African Congress that is known as the London Manifesto [2]). As I said, if there is an appropriate article for this info, the I am all for adding it. But what we shouldn't do is take some obscure newspaper report on an event and make up an name for it. Thats what appeared to have happened here and that is why I nominated. Rockpocket 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like i've only been confusing the issue. In my opinion London Manifesto should be a red-link, Advent Testimony Movement (not Adventist) should redirect to F. B. Meyer, and that article should be expanded to include a description of the manifesto and movement, among other things. Is that really a delete vote? I didn't actually find a "whole bunch more", but brief mentions in two histories of evangelicalism and a few paragraphs in a bio of Christabel Pankhurst.—eric 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The earliest reference to this document being called the London Manifesto is in the 1958 October 15 Watchtower. It uses the name 3 times. It has been so called in JW literature ever since. (Incidently that means that at least 6 million people have know the document by that name for at least 49 years) Because that may be a limited audience, I favor moving the article to Advent Testimony Movement with an alternate name London Manifesto and expanding the article to include what various protestant and JW sources make of it's importance historically. Do we have to wait for a conclusion to this AfD to do that? SV 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure Watchtower qualifies as a reliable source, but at least it gives us some confidence that the term "London Manifesto" has some significance. I suggest adding this, and the other sources you mention, to demonstrate that the event is historically significant. Then, as the conclusion of this AfD, the material will be in a suitable state either to keep or merge. For the record, I support eric's motion - though if there is a reliable source indicating this is known as the "London Manifestio" then this page should probably disambiguate between links to this subject and the Pan African Congress, rather than be a red link. Rockpocket 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be fully formed, but - when I nominated - it was was essentially a quote from a 1917 newspaper under a title that was not even mentioned in the single source. No-one has provided any evidence that there is any such thing as the 1917 "London Manifesto" (as opposed to the 1921 document from the Pan African Congress that is known as the London Manifesto [2]). As I said, if there is an appropriate article for this info, the I am all for adding it. But what we shouldn't do is take some obscure newspaper report on an event and make up an name for it. Thats what appeared to have happened here and that is why I nominated. Rockpocket 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does an article have to emerge fully formed? You're demanding that the London Manifesto be deleted because it's not fully formed and you've never heard of it. Plenty of other articles are stubs and I bet there's lots you've never heard about and won't find much info just with a casual internet search. I think that the WHOLE point of wikipedia is to advance it's collection of human knowledge by crowd casting. You and I might not have all the info but eric found a whole bunch more and there's a lot more to find out there. Just give it time. Let the Wiki crowd do what it's supposed to. SV 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is kind of the point, I'm not aware sure there is that much more info to add. I'm all for moving the relevant info into an appropriate article, but there is little point in keeping this particular article (since I can find no record of it being called the London Manifesto). Rockpocket 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should be kept. Even though it may not have been named the "London Manifesto", it made it easy enough to find. This was the only website I found that had all the basic information about this, and it proved to be beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HEFC (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — HEFC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rockpocket 20:18, 14 October 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.