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 no consensus. Noting that the article was substantially changed during the debate, there is also no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian soldier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I have several problems here. First, it's essentially a dictionary definition as-is. Secondly, the phrase "Christian soldier" has had and still has a wide variety of meanings. The second point is what worries me most. GHits, GNews and GScholar are conclusive about one thing: this phrase means whatever the utterer wants it to mean. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:OR and nomination. The article does not consist of any information beyond a definition and it is not immediately apparent that it is possible to write an encyclopedic article on this subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:
  • Google Search Results 1 - 100 of about 131,000 for "Christian soldier". (0.31 seconds)
  • Google Scholar Results 1 - 100 of about 3,670. (0.30 sec)
• These Google searches confirm the article has the potential to expand, which is all that is needed to "keep" an article at Wikipedia. WritersCramp (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Results 1 - 10 of about 280,000 for "red scarf". (0.26 seconds) Word combinations do not prove notability. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was expecting an article on the expression from the hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers", which is not remotely connected to what is said in this article. Alternatively it could be about literal soldiers serving in a nation's armed services who happen to be of the Christian faith. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the one source cited does not support the article's one sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could see how there might be books written about this sort of thing, but I don't see any evidence this article envisions to be that. Really, I'm not sure exactly what the topic of this article is, other than a dictionary definition. Because this is articles for deletion, I support the above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Redirect to Hutaree, the Michigan militia group. The group says Hutaree means "Christian Soldier". Note that this is all a current event under development.  kgrr ^talk 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to redirect to Onward, Christian Soldiers. This is 1,000 times the more common connection. We should not let a tiny nut group define this expression. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that there are millions of Christians serving in various armies in the world today and in history, literal "Christian soldiers." As well as millions of Christians who consider themselves "soldiers" in the "Army of Christ", who would never consider taking part in any terrorist activities. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have over 3 million articles and 99% of them are of less than good quality. We keep them in mainspace because this is our editing policy - readers will find them there and hopefully improve them. The suggestion that the conquest article is only a dictionary definition is wrong. There is plenty of room for expansion. The deletion +tag was posted when the article was only one day old! WritersCramp (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My concerns extend well beyond that the article is imperfect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are many entries/items within Wikipedia that are not in the dictionary. As a trusted reference guide, I (and I assume others) use Wikipedia to understand items in the press. I don’t know this fundamentalist group, nor do I care to be part of it – I came to Wikipedia to understand it. It’s a shame that Wikipedia removed or deleted this item purely because of its popularity in the press and the accusations of this groups members. To make my point - “Charles Manson”, a convicted criminal has a Wikipedia entry and his name is not in any dictionary, can we delete that entry too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.63.131 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.230.63.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment To be frank, I don't know what you are trying to say here. Nothing you say seems to respond to my nomination or any of the other comments. Nowhere is anybody proposing that this article be removed because of its "popularity in the press" and "accusations of this groups members," nor do I think in nominating this I'm setting any form of precedent for removing an article on Charles Manson. So, in short... huh? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hutaree or Christian Patriot movement (the more general article). Page is redundant and has zero content. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of potential places to go with this title: Church Militant, Salvation Army, Military order, Crusader, Military chaplain, Muscular Christianity, etc. What's wanted is a general article which discusses military metaphors and aspects of Christianity in a general way. It is not difficult to find a source which discusses this in a scholarly way, e.g. The growth of Christian militarism in mid-Victorian Britain. I suggest that we rename the article Christian militarism and develop it further from such sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I posted a notice on Project Christianity to try to get more opinions here. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I completely agree on one key point -- there is very likely a place for an article of this type, on Christian militarism or what-have-you. My concern is with calling it "Christian soldier." I wouldn't even be comfortable with a redirect, because if you Google this phrase and read its history, it becomes very rapidly plain that it doesn't always -- doesn't even usually -- refer to militant attitudes in Christianity. Indeed, it seems to have been borne as a sort of ironic phrase, that a "Christian soldier" is one who advances Christian views in a Christian way, meaning peacefully. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There probably needs to be a class of extended disambiguation pages that point to a variety of more specific concepts with a tad more explanation than the disambiguation style guide allows for. This is a subject that invites that kind of treatment. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate it. Dabs should probably start having refs, and so this article is on its way to something good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there could should be articles on Christians in the military, Military metaphors in Christianity, and the Crusades and other historical efforts to spread Chrisianity "by the sword", maybe Christian imperialism? What is not needed is an article on the expression "Christian soldier" as used by a group of 10-12 people in Michigan. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one needs to move "onward" to another website for its WP:POV problems. The premise is that, because certain militia groups refer to themselves as "Christian soldiers", then that should be the accepted definition. The article gives a nod to the 19th century hymn Onward Christian Soldiers, which is about spreading the gospel, not about joining Hutaree. If there's a notable group that calls itself the "Christian Soldiers" (plural), fine, but a "Christian soldier" is not a term that can be co-opted by a small group of people. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a dictionary definition and could be deleted on that ground, but it also gives a small extremist group unbalanced ownership of a term which has historically been associated with the peaceful spread of Christianity such as in the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" or the "Salvation Army." Edison (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a short article that gives just basic information and not much beyond that. It is a dictionary definition and some Biblical examples that are just put there and not elaboratng on what a Christian soldier is. If there should be a wikipedia article about militaristic imagery in the Bible, then it should be more detailed and put in an article which would possibly be titled Militaristic imagery in the Bible or Biblical militaristic imagery; something like that. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig would be my first choice, but unfortunately, there really aren't many articles (yet) to disambig it to. There are a number of redlinks in the discussion above that have potential, but at this point, I'm not really inclined to redirect it to a fringe group like Hutaree, but to be neutral, we can't pick them over the more commonly-known "Onward, Christian Soldiers". At this point, it would be best to set it as a disambig with the few other blue links we have (chaplain, crusader, Salvation Army, etc.) and let the somebody write an encyclopedic article under a better name. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Disambiguation is the only option aside from outright deletion that I personally think is reasonable, because it addresses most of my concerns. I share your concerns above that content to direct a disambig to either doesn't exist or exists in minimal form, currently. I also add to this a concern that such a disambig page could end up being a POV coatrack (for example, Christian Soldier really, really shouldn't redirect or disambiguate to Hutaree, in my opinion...that's not a generally accepted meaning or definition of the term). To be clear, I still favor deletion over disambiguation because I have concerns with disambiguation, but if consensus moves towards disambiguation I won't be crying in my beer. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig pages are easier to keep NPOV, because there is so little room for rhetoric. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is certainly true in general. My concerns apply very specifically to this particular case. It seems to me a messy disambiguation page. Minimal rhetoric, certainly, is an advantage to this proposal, which is why it'd be my second consideration after outright deletion, which I still favor. Regardless, I respect the opinion! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is clear there is no consensus, so the best option is to leave the article and let it expand over time. WritersCramp (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD hasn't been open for 48 hours yet. Consenus can't be judged yet. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or seriously re-work article from first sentence onwards. The combination of two such common words has a multiplicity of meanings, and the statement "is a person or group of people that believe in the use of force of arms to do Gods' work" is highly disputable. Quite apart from the fact that a group is unlikely to be called "A Christian soldier". PamD (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I started the conversion to a disambig page. Revert or fix as you see fit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued with that work. PamD (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The article, even after sincere efforts to improve it, is still misleading. When a person says "Christian soldier" 9 times out of 10 he is quoting "Onward, Christian Soldiers", or at least refering to it. That is where "Christian soldier" should be redirected. There does not seem to be an article on Christianity and war. There should be and it would be of top importance both in Project Christianity and Project History. But that is not a reason to save this article and hope that it grows to fill in the gap. Borock (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The current state of the disambiguation effort demonstrates why I have such a problem with it. We have disambig links to Hutaree, which is a highly controversial disambiguation of the phrase "Christian soldier" to say the least (we're essentially letting an extremist group co-opt the phrase by their own assertion), to the Onward Christian Soldiers song (which I'd favor redirecting this article to instead of deletion, if consensus exists), and then to an array of non-violent Christian organizations that seem loosely, at best, connected with the phrase "Christian soldier" -- their connections exist either through the use of the word "Army" in the name (The Salvation Army) or usage of the word "soldier" in some of their founding principles. Either way, I don't understand or see as reasonable disambiguating to any of these.

  I think PamD's comment above really nails it for me. "The combination of two such common words has a multiplicity of meanings." Either way, my personal opinion is now basically 1) Redirect to Onward Christian Soldiers, 2) Delete, 3)Disambiguation. I don't think disambiguation is necessarily completely un-viable as an option, I just don't think it's useful and is potentially very troublesome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on above Original author has reverted article back to its original article form, which is certainly the editor's right. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be motivated by the spirit of recentism and seems to hold no real relevance except in the context of Onward Christian soldiers. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Vandalism: It seems ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb keeps deleting information from the article to support his deletion +tag. WritersCramp (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for assuming good faith. What a lousy thing to say. Check out the "vandalism" I just performed on the first paragraph, wherein I added content that might actually make some people reconsider outright deleting the article. I've included several of the various meanings the phrase can have, and repaired your sentence leading to your citation to accurately reflect the citation's contents, which in no way support defining Christian soldiers as "A Christian soldier is a person or group of people that believe in the use of force of arms to do Gods' work." That is simply nowhere in the citation.

  It is not vandalism to correct your sentence to reflect what your citation actually says, and I think you should retract this absurd accusation. It is not appreciated, nor is it warranted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at this discussion, and looking at the article, at the moment it seems pretty clear that it means almost anything that the words "Christian" and "soldier" could ever possibly mean in proximity to each other. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace by disambiguation page. I can see no point to this article, which mixes unrelated concepts. There is point in Military metaphors for the Christian church, Onward, Christian Soldiers, Christians in the military, etc. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If gives more weight to finding consensus, I am more or less fine with disambiguation. There are more raw !votes here for deletion than anything else but I am, after a few days away from Wikipedia, coming back to this and beginning to think the folks suggesting disambiguation are making the most grounded-in-policy arguments. The arguments for deletion seem perfectly rational to me but perhaps not as specifically grounded in policy. As nom, I still prefer deletion but disambiguation is a completely fine outcome, as far as I'm concerned. So... uh... take all that babbling to mean what you will, sirs and madams! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it's now a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note, above keep !vote refers to the disambiguation page version. The article is currently experiencing some edit-warring back and forth between article and disambiguation states. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the disambiguation page. Jll (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note, above keep !vote refers to the disambiguation page version. The article is currently experiencing some edit-warring back and forth between article and disambiguation states. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Christian soldier is an article not a disambiguation page. 10:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs)

• Comment It has just been reverted back to a disambig page, a change which I endorse Jll (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems to me that making it a disambig page addresses most of the comments above. It seems that User:WritersCramp is unhappy with that, but I'm not sure why. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to disambig page, with additions, especially Church militant and Christian militia (currently a redlink but badly in need of being a disambig page of its own, since it can refer to anything from Hutaree to civil war factions in Lebanon). Ginsengbomb's comments above make most of the essential points. Wareh (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added those two links to the page, and turned some of the red links above blue. I leave it to someone else to list Christian militia groups, most of which already have individual articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' That the phrase has multiple meanings and can be used in a variety of contexts is all the more reason to create an article explaining them -- especially since there is no simple single redirect available. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment That is certainly why we have dab pages. We don't have articles devoted to a variety of loosely-related topics that happen to share a name. We have disambiguation pages. If this ends up as a dab page (and this seems like the emerging consensus), I will definitely pay close attention to it, lest people start popping things like "Terrorist groups" and "Extremist militia" into the page. But that's content, not topic, so I don't forward that as an argument for deletion, just something I'll be looking out for. The phrase is so wishy-washy in terms of what it is supposed to mean that it makes for a potentially messy dab page, but that's something that can probably be addressed on an ongoing editorial basis. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:49, 6 April 2010 (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.