 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
This is article is just not big enough to exist separately from the Alliance Defense Fund article. I going to put a 'merge' notification on it and if there is no objection, they can be merged together and this page can redirect to Alliance Defense Fund. --Randolph 00:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I support this merger. JoshuaZ 21:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Day of Truth is an event organised by the ADF, which is largely a legal organisation. There should be separate pages on the organisers (who have been around for eleven years before starting this event) and the event itself. Gaurav 15:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Day of Truth only exists in the context of the ADF. It is an event run and organized by the ADF with minimal participation by other groups. It should therefore be in their article. JoshuaZ 17:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the point does need some good consideration that the day of truth pretty much is run solely by the ADF, and it isn't too complicated yet. Merging it into the ADF article may provide it with some much needed material on their activities :). Homestarmy 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that at this point, since both pages are relatively small and lacking in content, a merge is acceptable. Later, if/when the article(s) develop enough to merit their own pages, they could bve separated again. --Tim4christ17 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- However, I would only support a temporary merge - note that "Day of Silence" (another protest, counter to the "Day of Truth" merits its own article.) --Tim4christ17 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's the other way around; the Day of Truth was started as a response to the Day of Silence. Jimpartame 00:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the Day of Silence is much more well known and common than the day of truth, and is sponsored/run by many different groups. JoshuaZ 00:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's also for equal rights, as opposed to the right to preach about how someone is going to hell. 67.187.112.115 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Now that's a POV statement if I've ever heard one. :P Where did you get that impression, anyway? Did you even read the article? It said nothing about hell, merely about promoting discussion about what is (at best) a controversial topic. --Tim4christ17 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- However, I would only support a temporary merge - note that "Day of Silence" (another protest, counter to the "Day of Truth" merits its own article.) --Tim4christ17 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that at this point, since both pages are relatively small and lacking in content, a merge is acceptable. Later, if/when the article(s) develop enough to merit their own pages, they could bve separated again. --Tim4christ17 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the point does need some good consideration that the day of truth pretty much is run solely by the ADF, and it isn't too complicated yet. Merging it into the ADF article may provide it with some much needed material on their activities :). Homestarmy 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Day of Truth only exists in the context of the ADF. It is an event run and organized by the ADF with minimal participation by other groups. It should therefore be in their article. JoshuaZ 17:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
A Day Of Truth section now exists in the Alliance Defense Fund article. There is not any significant additional information on this page, and I don't see any info forthcoming. Is there any reason this article shouldn't be deleted? BarkingDoc 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, I support a temporary merge (in this case, copy current article to replace the section in the ADF page right now) until someone takes the time to add significant additional information. --Tim4christ17 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I am looking at it more closely, I think this article has some merit on its own. It is probably a legitimate topic which will develop as more information gets published. I think it would also be strange for what is arguably the smallest and least important project of the ADF to be the only one that is explored in detail on its main article page--- the court cases they have been involved in, for example, have separate articles linked from the ADF artcile. I don't see any reason it shouldn't be the same here. BarkingDoc 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)