Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accidents, Not Punishments

Add links
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. Singularity 08:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents, Not Punishments

[edit]
Accidents, Not Punishments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I prodded, the prod was removed, so I'm taking it here. This article is about a single sermon preached by Charles Spurgeon, and it really does not establish its notability (because it doesn't). Although this really doesn't have a specific category, I think as per WP:BOOK, , because it does not have third-party sources identifying its notability, it should be deleted. Noble Story (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't think an individual sermon is notable. JIP | Talk 03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, that Dr. Livingstone thought it was OK doesn't establish significance. WillOakland (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I believe an individual sermon most certainly could be notable, the same as any other piece of writing, this one doesn't have much going for it except this item of trivia. The only mentions in Google Books were in Spurgeon's autobiography and biographies, in connection with the Livingstone incident. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, There are other sermons that might deserve an article, but this one seems to only be notable because of Livingstone's approval.Brian0324 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per creator. The Livingstone's section does give it much notability, but the train wreck was completely devastating to the area. His sermon (which I'm sure before this none of you had been taught about), was one of the most famous, and important of it's time. The sermon was given after a very notable set of accidents, and it has external links to both PDF of the sermon, and full Audio. The article is very well done, and is one of the biggest events in London in the 19th century. -- AmericanEagle 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of what you said may be true. But a work like this needs outside, third-party sources talking about it to establish notability. This sermon does not. So, delete. Noble Story (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then there should be a {{Primarysources|article}} template on it. The above reasons that I put give it notability, it just needs reliable good third party sources. Not deletion. -- AmericanEagle 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The train wreck(s), Livingstone story, and sermon External Links all give it notability -- AmericanEagle 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sermon was related to the train wreck, but that does not give it notability. The sermon link is a first-party source, and doesn't count. So, you once again have only the Livingstone mention. That doesn't sound like multiple third-party mentions to me. Noble Story (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was one of the most influential things in the "Train Wreck"-era. The sermon link(s) are don't have to be Third-party, they are resources. And again, having a well-known missionary (Livingstone) being found with it after he had traveled across Africa, is a major event. Like I said it would need: {{Primarysources|article}} -- AmericanEagle 04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there is no notability guideline for sermons, but WP:BK is a pretty good guideline. It states right in the lead "it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." Later on it says "The book has been the subject [major focus] of multiple, non-trivial [reliable sources] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." (my comments are in brackets) There is no use putting a {{Primarysources|article}} template if there are no third-party sources. Look up "Accidents not Punishments" on Google, and what do you find? Actually, where are you getting the fat that is was "one of the most influential things in the "Train Wreck"-era"?
I don't mean to be overly bitey here, but I just don't think there is any concrete reason to keep this article. Noble Story (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be really rude, but in en:WP new users are just more people to be bitten. I haven't been editing that much here because almost all users (especially Admins') are not really caring. I am mostly editing on the Simple English Wikipedia because editors there are down-to-Earth and friendly. I am becoming really ticked with this. This is taking me a long time to write this... I am becoming very annoyed and really need to get away from this for awhile. Shrug -- AmericanEagle 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever you want to think. But I have done nothing other than showing you why this article should not be kept. Noble Story (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep If it's a published sermon by a notable teacher than it's notable. Not every sermon a pastor preaches is published... this one was. Saksjn (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm sorry, but without citations to reliable, third party sources to that state that this sermon deserves special noteworthiness--as oppose to any run of the mill sermon--notability has not been established.-- danntm T C 03:40, 23 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accidents,_Not_Punishments&oldid=1137536633"