Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontrinitarianism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:37, 5 December 2005

Nontrinitarianism

The article is a neologism and failed the google test. KarmaKameleon 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This AfD nomination is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s second edit.[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename if a better term can be found. It's a legitimate article in need of better citations that does have a decent set of external links. Originally I thought maybe redirect to Unitarianism, but this covers too many other deviations from Christian trinitarian doctrine. Durova 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename, but Keep -- "non-trinitarian" turns up 14,100 Google hits, and Nontrinitarianism contains a lot of content which is too big to merge into the main article Trinity (which is by itself already getting rather large). AnonMoos 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. The search "anti-trinitarian OR antitrinitarian OR non-trinitarian OR nontrinitarian" turns up 48,600 Google hits. AnonMoos 16:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. It is important to actually read the things that a Google search turns up. What's important here, for example, is whether your Google search turned up some sources. Uncle G 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's nice -- I wasn't researching anuything, just pointing out that anti-trinitarianism is a hardly a "neologistic" concept. AnonMoos 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Counting Google hits doesn't do that, as I said. I get Google hits for "strawberry graffiti", a concept that I made up just now, and for "zofip", a sequence of characters that I just chose at random. Uncle G 20:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whatever dude -- I'm sure you feel a warm pleasant glow of pride over your 8 hits for "strawberry graffiti", but I fail to see what relevance they have to the current discussion, since we're not Googlewhacking. AnonMoos 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The relevance is pretty clear. Please read what I wrote again. Uncle G 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should be a sub-section of trinity. The different churches describe here should then be listed under this subsection and would have their own respective articles. KarmaKameleon 16:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This comment is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s seventh edit.[reply]
- Unfortunately Trinity is already pushing length limits. Click on http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trinity&action=edit and you get this message "This page is 49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."
- Looking at Trinity again, I noticed most of what is written in this article is already in the Trinity article, i.e. Ebionites, Sabelism, etc. and I believe all that is needed is a modification of the Anti-trinitarian subsection. KarmaKameleon 17:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A little merging if you like, but a valid article. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some references for the term, by the way: [1], plus many other other Wikipedia articles. A genuine neologism wouldn't have got this far without being deleted. DJ Clayworth 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concepts on the article page are definitely not original research, and I think I've heard the term before. 132.205.45.148 19:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Rename or Delete, if only because of Wikipedia guidelines Avoid_neologisms defining such as "words and terms that have recently been "coined" and generally do not appear in any dictionary."KarmaKameleon 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This vote is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s ninth/tenth edits.[reply]
Keep per DJ Clayworth. KK, you really might be better advised to spend more time participating in other Wikipedia activities to get a feel for Wikipedia before initiating AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't blame me, it is a guideline, and you can't argue with that. This would be my 10th edit. KarmaKameleon 20:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ****Counting Google hits doesn't do that, as I said.  I get Google hits for "strawberry graffiti", a concept that I made up just now, and for "zofip", a sequence of characters that I just chose at random. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 20:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 *****Whatever dude -- I'm sure you feel a warm pleasant glow of pride over your 8 hits for "strawberry graffiti", but I fail to see what relevance they have to the current discussion, since we're not Googlewhacking. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
+******The relevance is pretty clear. Please read what I wrote again. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''': This should be a sub-section of [[trinity]]. The different churches describe here should then be listed under this subsection and would have their own respective articles. [[User:KarmaKameleon|KarmaKameleon]] 16:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) ''This comment is {{user|KarmaKameleon}}'s seventh edit.''
 **Unfortunately [[Trinity]] is already pushing length limits.  Click on http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trinity&action=edit and you get this message "This page is 49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."