Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontrinitarianism
The article is a neologism and failed the google test. KarmaKameleon 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep A little merging if you like, but a valid article. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)