- 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 keep. MBisanz talk 03:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cross and flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The United Methodist Church is clearly notable, and has its own article. However, there is no suggestion that its Cross and flame logo is notable in its own right. Have any reliable, third party sources written about it in detail? Papa November (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to United Methodist Church. Athough this could stand on its own, there is really very little to say. It would be better as a section in the other article. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - there is a memoir here [1] and news of the death of the creator here [2] - Google for "edward j mikula" cross and flameand similar. eg: United Methodist Women have taken the mark and created their own stylized version to remind them of the opportunities and obligations of discipleship. The Women's Program Division's reproduction of the insignia always appears within a teardrop-shaped outline. Too much to add to United Methodist Church. P.S.: I am worried about losing my Deletionist leanings - is this old age? Springnuts (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those links appear to be United Methodist publications. Is there anything from independent sources? Papa November (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that there is anything wrong with United Methodist sources here. No one else is likely to write something on the topic. But that doesn't make it non-notable. You can see one in almost any American town. I voted to delete because it would be an interesting addition to the main article and would never be much on its own, not because it's not notable.Northwestgnome (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per Springnuts' suggestions and sources brought up. I think the current United Methodist Church is pretty long already and probably wouldn't have much room for this, but it is a common and recognizable symbol and is notable enough to be mentioned. I don't know if the article title is good or not; is "cross and flame" the typical name of the symbol? —Politizer talk/contribs 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per sources included above in this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand--major religious logos like this usually do have a significance and justify an article. DGG (talk) 22:40, 28 December 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.