Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triclavianism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:56, 23 April 2007

Triclavianism

Not notable. The article consists of a definition of Triclavianism, the assertion that the number of nails used to crucify Jesus has been debated for centuries (but not that this debate is of any great importance, or that the belief in three was ever popular or significant), and also a long quotation from a single book that itself only established that some people believed this, but does not say why this should be significant. The Storm Surfer 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The quotation does a good job of explaining why the matter was debated, and why it is important. As the quotation indicates, St. Francis of Assisi, a major figure in the history of the Catholic Church and an ally of Pope Innocent III, had stigmata from four nails. Innocent's enemies wanted to discredit St. Francis, and did so in part by promoting Triclavianism. Although the article doesn't mention it, there is also an art history angle to this. Over the centuries artists portraying the Crucifixion have gradually changed from using two to three and now four nails. Thus the fact that a religious painting uses a triclavianist (as opposed to biclavianist or quadriclavianist) depiction gives a valuable clue to when it was painted. Andrel 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my primary rational is based on what i've already noted on the article talk page, in summary, the author of the quotation in the article appears to be the only highly notable source that is verifiable who uses this term, the Catholic Encyclopedia external link doesn't use the word, the google search offered on the talk page isn't for the same word, the only other halfway notable sources i've seen for this term are a parody website and Stormfront.org, and because this single author being quoted appears to be the only really notable person who uses the term, I think this article fails the spirit of WP:NEO, while one notable and verifiable source seems to use the term, that person seems to be pretty much the end of it. Homestarmy 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism. DGG 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Not notable.  The article consists of a definition of Triclavianism, the assertion that the number of nails used to crucify Jesus has been debated for centuries (but not that this debate is of any great importance, or that the belief in three was ever popular or significant), and also a long quotation from a single book that itself only established that some people believed this, but does not say why this should be significant. [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
-Notable.  The quotation does a good job of explaining why the matter was debated, and why it is important.  As the quotation indicates, St. Francis of Assisi, a major figure in the history of the Catholic Church and an ally of Pope Innocent III, had stigmata from four nails.  Innocent's enemies wanted to discredit St. Francis, and did so in part by promoting Triclavianism.  Although the article doesn't mention it, there is also an art history angle to this.  Over the centuries artists portraying the Crucifixion have gradually changed from using [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10672a.htm two to three and now four] nails.  Thus the fact that a religious painting uses a triclavianist (as opposed to biclavianist or quadriclavianist) depiction gives a valuable clue to when it was painted.  [[User:Andrel|Andrel]] 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
+'''Notable.'''  The quotation does a good job of explaining why the matter was debated, and why it is important.  As the quotation indicates, St. Francis of Assisi, a major figure in the history of the Catholic Church and an ally of Pope Innocent III, had stigmata from four nails.  Innocent's enemies wanted to discredit St. Francis, and did so in part by promoting Triclavianism.  Although the article doesn't mention it, there is also an art history angle to this.  Over the centuries artists portraying the Crucifixion have gradually changed from using [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10672a.htm two to three and now four] nails.  Thus the fact that a religious painting uses a triclavianist (as opposed to biclavianist or quadriclavianist) depiction gives a valuable clue to when it was painted.  [[User:Andrel|Andrel]] 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''', my primary rational is based on what i've already noted on the article talk page, in summary, the author of the quotation in the article appears to be the only highly notable source that is verifiable who uses this term, the Catholic Encyclopedia external link doesn't use the word, the google search offered on the talk page isn't for the same word, the only other halfway notable sources i've seen for this term are a parody website and [[Stormfront.org]], and because this single author being quoted appears to be the only really notable person who uses the term, I think this article fails the spirit of [[WP:NEO]], while one notable and verifiable source seems to use the term, that person seems to be pretty much the end of it. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''keep''' Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of  presentism. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)