Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missional

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. - brenneman ^{L} 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missional

Promotional essays on the Christian Missionary movement. Fails: Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and WP:NOT#Original Thought. Most sections are written in a first-person manner and ask rhetorical questions and the accompanied author attributions for four sections make them highly likely copy-and-pasted essays (i.e copyright violations). --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedily delete as obvious copyvio and POV--Musaabdulrashid 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy, if there is no quick refutation: The article is signed and attributed, which makes it almost a certain copyvio (depending upon which church it came from and what they did with their licensing), and it is a direct attempt to communicate to the reader, and it is a copy and paste from a pastoral letter. Since it's not a papal or royal pastoral letter, it's not appropriate for WikiSource. Geogre 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This article has been a joint effort of 7 people to establish some foundational content on wikipedia about the term "missional"...it has been noted that we should go back through and look more closely to the "point of view" of the articles but it has been the intent to be as fair and broad as possible without deluting the term missional. As far as the authors attributions, it is will full consent from the authors that their material is on the page. It was written for wikipedia. I was designated as the original "poster" of everyone's input, then each person would come in and edit and bring a more full balance to the content. Each person has been told to attribute and use footnotes when citing sources. If anyone sees content that does not seem to meet this criteria, please point it out and we will either fix it or remove that citation. All other feedback is appreciated so that we can fully comply with the guidelines of wikipedia. Thank you. --Missions fan 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: A major problem with what you've said so far is that you are implying those who have contributed to the article so far "own" it. Wikipedia, being a collaborative project doesn't work like that. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a host for personal essays. By attributing each section, it's implying that no one else but the original author(s) can modify the article and also implies that the specific section is that author's "original thought", which poses not only copyright problems, but also neutral point of view issues as well. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Collaborative efforts are encouraged on Wikipedia. So the fact that we are working together to begin the article does not imply that we think we own it. See the Wikipedia Collaborations section [1] where it says that "In order to improve the quality of articles which are short or lacking in detail, Wikipedia's community take part in collaborations to expand articles. On each collaboration, an article is chosen by people interested in the topic, and for a period of time (a week, fortnight, or month) the chosen article is worked on, under Wikipedia's principle of collaborative editing." --Missions fan 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Criticism taken and understood. Our weaknesses in the articles have more to do with each of us learning about posting to Wikipedia. The origianal goal was to have one person post for everyone at first so that we could coordinate a strong start to the page. Per yours and others suggestions, the remainder of our group will post their own material. We will also be editing and critiquing one another, and we are WIDE OPEN for others to post/reply etc. (We understand THAT IS WIKIPEDIA) A topic that is so hotly discussed right now needs this space and an open forum. Many people have no idea where to begin to understand this and study it for themselves. We wanted to provide an outline, resource list, and links to begin. And start the flow of input. We have simply been surprised there was not a wikipedia page yet, so we wanted to start it--not own it. Everyone has been contacted to make necessary changes, add needed references, and work on the "point of view." Thank you for your feedback. Until the others have posted, I hope this answers your original concerns. All criticism, edits, and comments are welcome. --Missions fan 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• You'll also need to address the biggest problem of this article -- that it's putting forward the viewpoint of your church's members. i.e. soapboxing and a lot of other editors will vote for deletion on those grounds. Encyclopedia articles have to be written from a third person AND neutral point of view. What exactly is this article trying to do that Missionary isn't? Remeber, this page needs to resemble an encyclopedia article, not a discussion phamplet. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: As I have stated, all criticisms have been sent out and will be worked on. The basic difference between missionary and missional is Missionary is a noun, Missional is an adjective. As I have been studying the basic submission guidelines and processes for improvement, I saw that before an article is to be suggested for deletion that the two parties in disagreement should discuss it first. Why did you suggest this for deletion before making a comment on the page (talk or discussion section)? Since you are proponent of the "guidelines of wikipedia" it seems that you would want to follow all rules of protocol?

• Comment: Missions Fan, will the others be adding content or editing? That is your best bet for keeping it. The point of view is your biggest problem. If it is a group, then stay true to wiki and have everyone post-otherwise, it doesn't follow the wikipedia guidelines. make sure you read those--Cocodysri 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

• Reply: Yes, our goal is to edit the contributions of each of the other people in the group so that it is as solid of a beginning as possible. As far as people outside of the ones we know, we hope so. I am certain that more editing will come. The term is gaining broad use with varying "definitions" or "understanding." We are hoping there will be a LOT of contributions, discussion, editing, etc.

• Comment: This topic is being talked about a lot in evangelical circles. Can you add more references/broader pictures of how others are defining it or not defining it? I think this would be a better submission if more of your "team" were actually adding the content and you had a broader range of references. It reads a little like the "Ed Stetzer and David Putman show"--excellent resources, I know of Dr. Stetzer and his work with North American Missions and church planting. It is understandable if you are all most familiar with their work. But for the integrity of a wikipedia page, you need to look at the broad picture of what is taught and written. You should also include material from www.missionalchurch.org, www.gracepeace.com, Tim Keller, Gruder's The Missional Church, www.sentchurch.com, the Gospel and Our Culture Network: Empirical Indicators of a 'Missional Church' A Working Document of the "Developing Congregational Models" Team The Transforming Congregations Toward Mission Project (http://www.gocn.org/indicators.htm). And I would suggest clearer contrast and comparison with the emerging church movement. You have some mention, it is sophomorish at best. You are on the right track, just fix these things and you should be fine. Make a note on this page if you would like help. --Goandtellallyoucan 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: I have sent everyone a link to this discussion, so I am sure that your sources will be a big help to those who need to adapt their content. And of course, you are free to add / edit content and these links yourself. What I said to Netsnipe above bears repeating, not a person among us thinks of ourself as an owner of this page. We simply wanted to get the content up there and the submissions and input started. --Missions fan 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Missions Fan, your co-writers are recreating the wheel on a few topics. You have a whole section that ties in with the history of christian missions which is already a part of wikipedia. this will be a better article if you simply link to those pages as a reference rather than rewrite everything. If there is content on those pages that is insufficient, then edit those pages with updated, accurate nonbiased information and improve the whole community. You all seem smart but you seem to be doing a lot of extra work. Before anyone started writing they should have become more familiar with wikipedia - it would have saved everyone some time. --Goandtellallyoucan 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As one who just recently attempted to add to the entry under discussion, I can honestly say that, at least on my part (and I believe, for my collegues as well), any failures in regard to Wikipedia standards as the innocent result of our bubmbling efforts to create an article. I, for one, am admittedly a complete novice to the Wikipedia reality. With all that said, I believe that Wikipedia may be enhanced by the inclusion of an article on the subject that we selected. Reverendal 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reverendal

• Comment: This page seems to be very helpful and useful to many of us who are new in this subject. The discussion shows that the problems seem have to do with the guidelines and technical issues. May be a little bit of patience and tolerance can help them to get it up. Since it is in a public community environment, many of us will be benefited in long run. Just reading many of your insightful feedbacks, I have already learned few things in this subject. It is worth a try.--Clui 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Clui (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Reply: This user above, Clui, is the cited author of one of the articles included. I have emailed him and asked him to make edits on Point of View issues in his piece. Will it help if he can email from an authentic .edu email address with his full name to authenticate the uniqueness (non-sock puppet) nature of his account.--Missions fan 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies to Clui for being a bit hasty with that SPA tag, but we AFD reviewers can get overly paranoid about users with no edits to their names. Sockpuppetry can get very rampant around here. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Anyway, to be honest I do feel that the article is somewhat hopeless because like Goandtellallyoucan has pointed out, it seems to be reinventing the wheel in that the Mission (Christian) article already covers the topic well in an impartial manner that is to be expected in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, this article appears to be preaching on how best to be a missionary -- not exactly a topic that can be written about objectively since it all depends on how each writer individually interprets the Bible. I simply can't see anyway how any of your writers can convey the information you wish to add to this encyclopedia while maintaining a neutral point of view. Anyway, due to the lack of opinions submitted by other reviewers, I would think there will be at least week before a consensus is reached by the Articles for Deletion team. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too much like other articles and I am concerned that with the POV elements removed it would be exactly like other articles. Mallanox 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essay, WP:OR, so many things wrong about this being here. Doesn't belong here. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:'Why should we be so hasty to delete the things on this page. It is obvious that there is a desire for this to be defined and those who have contributed really were unschooled in the ways of the Wikipedia... It seems to me that we should keep working on what we have in order to improve it rather than just throwing the whole thing out. I have just posted an addition to the article that I hope will be helpful. I am also new to this so please feel free to point out anything that I may need to improve. --Jamieryck 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

*Comment I feel that there is vaulable content contained in the contributions. I agree that the contributors may need to edit their input to ensure that Wikipedia standards are met, but the material is worth keeping.--Rcinguyton 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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.