Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecclesiastical state

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article only exists to further the POV-pushing attempts of User:67.124.49.20, User:208.57.91.27, User:Johnski, and User:Samspade. It could be a redirect, but it keeps getting changed back. It should be deleted and protected against recreation for the time being. Jdavidb 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This doesn't seem to me to be the place to sort this out. Jkelly 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Irrespective of the ongoing content arguments at Dominion of Melchizedek the term "ecclesiastical sovereignty" is a neologism of uncertain meaning used only by supporters of Melchizedek. Delete.--Gene_poole 04:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Britannica uses the term and so do many other notable websites. It should not be a redirect as the Vatican is not the only possible ecclesiastical state, even if it is currently. -- Kjkolb 04:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove references to not established or recognized Ecclesiastical states (especially to fake ones, see [1] and [2]) such as the so-called Dominion of Melchizedek. There was, for example, an Ecclesiastical state in Germany from 1007 to 1802, with the city of Bamberg as capital. Groeck 04:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Redirect. Dispute regarding validity should not be resulted in article being AfD. It should be tagged for NPOV/Validity instead. Also, we have a very similar article Ecclesiastical government. Maybe we should merge the two articles together (ie: 1 redirect to the other). --Hurricane111 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. as per Hurricane111 Dlyons493 07:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per hurricane. Absolutely no need to have both. Marskell 12:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeRedirect to Ecclesiastical government. Karol 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No new information to merge to the other article, unless the Melchizedek thing has much more widespread acceptance than anyone here has indicated. Delete, but agree with Groeck on potential for inclusion of "real" ecclesiastical states vs. bogus ones. Barno 19:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect... there is nothing in the current article that would be of value to merge. A locked redirect to Ecclesiastical government would be better.--Isotope23 20:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...utter nonsense. KHM03 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Used as propaganda for DoM Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree that it is currently for promoting Melchizedek, but it appears to be an actual term. Therefore, I think it should be cleaned up and one of the articles should be redirected to the other. -- Kjkolb 02:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least get rid of the irrelevant fraud scheme mentioned there. Pavel Vozenilek 14:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ecclesiastical government. Alf ^melmac 08:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ecclesiastical government. I would argue that simply deleting the page is not the best solution. Give it about three days after it is deleted and the same person will readd the page. Trust me, I've been dealing with this page for a month or so and have been deleting the POV information. Anyone is more then welcome to go back and look at my comments on that talk page. Davidpdx 9/25/05 11:18 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.