Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17th century denominations

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 Keep, with all commenters acknowledging the article needs work. On my own editorial initiative, I will add "in England" to the end of the name, to avoid confusion, but further renaming discussions could continue on the talk page, of course. Xoloz 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17th century denominations

I think this new article (created 08:13, 14 May 2006 S ellinson) should be deleted with any information not already in the article English Dissenters merged into that article. The reason for the deletion and not merge and redirect is the page name of the article: "17th century denominations" that does not reflect the title on the page "17th Century religious Denominations in England" in the page. Religious denominations in other countries apart from England in the 17th century. If the article "English Dissenters" did not exist then moving the article to "17th Century religious Denominations in England" would be an option but as the article "English Dissenters" exists such a move will duplicate information. Finally it contains information which is not correct -- the Levellers were a secular movement, and it is speculative to say "Many of these were influenced by the radical changes brought on by the execution of Charles I and the advent of the Commonwealth of England" because it is part of a chicken and egg argument. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would - naturally perhaps, - disagree

I would argue that the page fulfills a valuable function as the overview page for English dissenters spans a very large timeframe. 17th Century groups have a special character; their relationship to the commonwealth is complex and their influence on the contemporary political process is considerable.

All the groups identified have at least some religious element. It is too simplistic to suggest groups at this period, such as the levellers, could be identified as being "secular" or "religious"; the discourse of the levellers was shot through with the religious imagary of its period and as such they may be acceptable as a religious group. However, i would draw your attention to the question of the extent to which "the levelers" may be considered as a coherent group per se. The work of Christopher Hill and Brian Manning underlines the complexities of these interactions.

S ellinson 12:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Stewart Ellinson[reply]

It is not too simplistic to say that the levellers were secular. All discourse at that time has a strong religious element to it. If one is to say that the levellers were a denomination then one would be free to include the New Model Army, and given Astley's prayer at Edgehill, the Royalist army as well. In this context denomination has a specific meaning (which is not covered in this article at the moment) which is Christian religious denomination and as such should probably include the major denominations as well as the minor dissenters/independents. Further were the diggers a denomination? I am not sure; they based their arguments on Christianity, but were they a denomination? I would like to see a source which said that they were before including such a statment in Wikipedia. However this is a debate we can have on the talk page if it the article survives --Philip Baird Shearer 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - the naming is clearly misleading to an uninformed reader. Better to have this as a category. If noone can think of a way to do this then best to tag it for reference and stub and see where the wiki community takes it. Peripitus 13:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Philip Baird Shearer; either that, or let it take a more synoptic view of all of the religious denominations in existence in the 17th century. Smerdis of Tlön 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles are a mess. This one and English dissenters are poorly written -- little more than lists (with errors, at that). This area has good potential to have great articles, if only the editors would work together. Following editors around to redo links doesn't engender trust. While the movements may be centered around England, her colonies were also important (the religious American colonies, such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, as well as John Wesley's unfortunate problems in Georgia had a strong impact on religion in England). Then there were movements through England from Germany to America (such as the Palatine Emigration) that also had an effect. There is a lot of good material here for some very decent articles. Or, we could have a turf war. Ted 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:TedE. I'm by no means an expert here , but it seems to me that there is more than enough that could be said to make this article useful and distinct from English Dissenters. Indeed, given the number of sectarian groups, you could probably write a book (ah, that's been done, several times). The World Turned Upside Down is frequently reprinted, which speaks to the popularity of the subject. But this is a time-limited conditional vote. If this is renommed in a couple of months, and it is still as is, I'll vote differently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as last two). Neither of the articles (nor Nonconformism which covers similar ground) are particularly good. It may be useful to have separate articles on the denominations of the Commonwelath period (most of which did not survive the Restoration), on the Old Dissent (i.e. dissenting denominations) prior to the arrival of the Moravians and the Evangelical (or Methodist) Revival. However all these articles require work, as none really provide an overview of the subject. Nonconformism is perhaps the nearest to that. It all needs work, but I am not sufficiently expert to help much. Peterkingiron 23:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the current articles are a mess is no reason to create another. It makes more sense to fix the ones we have rather than writing another one. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but surely in need of a rename. I mean to say, in 17th century England, denominations included guineas, pounds, shillings and pennies. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 15 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.