RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Father Divine

Father Divine | Result: Redirected to here and contents reduced to a footnote

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Not substantial enough. 02:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So add stuff. Boredatwork (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a good response to a stubby article. It's not the nominator's responsibility to expand the article. The article should've been substantial to begin with. 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "We should delete this because I can't be arsed expanding it" isn't a good direction. Deletion of stubs should only be when they cannot be meaningfully expanded. Wilder Bicycle 18:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't be creating stubs to merely fill in red links in the first place. Stubs on their own should be substantial enough and then they can be expanded. It's not any editor's responsibility to expand extremely short stubs, even if they call for an extremely short article to be deleted. It's not a right approach to wiki editing to create extremely short articles and expect other editors to expand. There's always another opportunity for this article to be expanded to be a standalone, but as it currently stands, it should not be a standalone, regardless of its potential to be expanded. It needs to pass the "substantial enough" test first. Also, short articles aren't necessarily stubs and aren't necessarily bad either. As long as they are complete, they shouldn't get a stub template. 20:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was created in 2011, long before the War On Stubs. So you're criticising someone who did a thing that was ok seven years ago but not now. Be reasonable. Wilder Bicycle 08:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how or why you came to that conclusion. Policies and attitudes on quality control change over time. If an article back then doesn't adhere to today's standards, something should be done, usually shape up or delete/merge. That's not being mean, that's just quality control. I don't appreciate the off-handed "be reasonable" remark when I believe I have adequately explained my position; I am open for a chance for this subject in the future to get its own article as long as someone expands it to be much more useful to readers than what it is at the time of this deletion proposal. 04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Cult leader who inspired Jim Jones? Looks pretty keepy. Boredatwork (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be a bad idea to just create a subsection on Father Divine and have the article redirect to Jim Jones? 00:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Missional, expandable. Wilder Bicycle 09:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. There's plenty of material to expand his article with. DuceMoosolini (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

 * 1) Merge with Jim Jones. 00:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) There's a on this guy at the other wiki. It's notable that he influenced Jim Jones. Rather than keeping a stub, however, I'd recommend merging this into the Jones article and putting an entry in the to do list for future work. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) The question with stubs is whether or not they will save work and stimulate a more expanded article. Otherwise, they waste the time of users following a link to a stub to gain more information. At this point an expanded reference in the Jones article would be much more convenient for the user. The only substantial content in the article at present is the reference to Jones. A deletion request is not a criticism of the one who created the article, who may have had an intention to expand, or just hated red-links. Red links actually stimulate article creation, whereas a brief stub may actually suppress it, by comparison. Some random Smith (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Deletion of stubs should happen if they are extremely short and convey little useful, interesting information. They should be merged if the content can be easily incorporated into another article. Stubs in if themselves aren't a problem. Extremely short articles with little effort poured in by the editors (little effort is little effort regardless when the page is made), with only a shred of information, are the problem. 05:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have turned the page into a redirect to Jim Jones and put the pages former contents into a footnote. if anybody would like to try to create a page about him again in the future, I think that would be fine. Spud (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)