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 is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s second edit.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The relevance is pretty clear. Please read what I wrote again. Uncle G 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please go play your little Googlewhacking games elsewhere, and leave the rest of us to discuss the merits of the proposal, because I find your off-base and quantitatively-ignorant accusations of shoddy "research" to be annoying and quite irrelevant to the main topic here. AnonMoos 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- They are the main topic here. Doing research, and doing it properly, is a fundamental thing here in AFD. Uncle G 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Dude, you seem to be having extreme difficulty in your obtuseness in understanding the very simple fact that I was not "doing research" in the sense in which you intend. As a regular contributor to the Trinity article, I know about as much as I need to know about non-Trinitarianism, and I already knew beforehand pretty much what I would find when I made the Google search -- and if the Google search results had been drastically different from what I expected, then I would have first suspected a flaw in Google! The sole and exclusive reason I went to Google at all, was only to address KarmaKameleon Google-driven claims that non-Trinitarianism was a neologistic concept. Furthermore, there is a slight difference between 8 and 48,600. You certainly seem to find it very important to feel smugly condescendingly officiously superior to other people, even when there is extremely little basis in fact for such feelings. AnonMoos 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- They are the main topic here. Doing research, and doing it properly, is a fundamental thing here in AFD. Uncle G 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please go play your little Googlewhacking games elsewhere, and leave the rest of us to discuss the merits of the proposal, because I find your off-base and quantitatively-ignorant accusations of shoddy "research" to be annoying and quite irrelevant to the main topic here. AnonMoos 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The relevance is pretty clear. Please read what I wrote again. Uncle G 22:37, 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. AnonMoos 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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." AnonMoos
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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) Speedy keep per DJ Clayworth and because of increasing evidence that this is a bad-faith nomination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)- 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)
- If it were that easy there would be no AfD discussions. This is, however, the real world, and yes, we can "argue with that", and we may be arguing based on experience that you haven't had. For instance, you seem to think that "it is a guideline" means "it is an unalterable rule to which no exceptions can be considered", but more experienced Wikipedians understand that not even policy is the sort of "don't discuss, just obey" rule you seem to think it is -- and guidelines less so than policy. For another, we realize that it is very possible to misapply guidelines and policies (because hey, sometimes people have ulterior motives, and they try to pose as "only following the rules" when what they're really doing is trying to stretch the rules.) Speaking of misapplying guidelines, you quoted the part of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms that defined neologisms; did you also read the part about "Sometimes, experienced grammarians who know the meanings of prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and other -fix words might make articles about those words"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- And would'nt that be nice? I disagree that in the "real world", we choose not the follow the guideline. Might as well not have them, if no ones going to follow them. There's no "misapplication" of guideline here, it's a total ignoring of it. The guideline is as plain as it can get and there's a reason why what I quoted was the first one. It needs to be applied first before the other. KarmaKameleon 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- So basically, based on your vast experience with Wikipedia which just reached ten edits, you're absolutely sure that following a guideline means applying the first sentence rigidly and ignoring everything after that first sentence. (Interesting that that first sentence, which came first because it was clearly the most important one, wasn't even in the article a month and a half ago.[2]) As for "Might as well not have them if no one's going to follow them", I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; maybe then you'll start to understand that Wikipedians are not only allowed to but expected to ask the question of which situations call for application of a guideline or policy, and which situations call for the guideline or policy itself to be modified. In particular, I think this AfD has illustrated a need to clarify that adding a well-known prefix such as "non-" to a well-known root word is not enough to create a "neologism" of the sort Wikipedia is trying to avoid. I am not ordinarily a fan of WP:IAR but if you actually think you're acting in the spirit of Wikipedia by trying to delete the information in the article just because some page you found in the Wikipedia namespace said "avoid neologisms" (not "seek and destroy neologisms", I must observe) then you really need far more experience with Wikipedia before you get anywhere near AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. "Ignore all rules" applies to the rule your trying to set. Maybe you should read what you write, and realize all of it applies to you too. ultimately these rules/guidelines meant to consider all sides. Also, where do you get the idea that I am "trying to delete the information in the article"? If you're confused by the title of the project, that wasn't my own. Look at my vote I'm leaving a lot of option for those who are 'truly' experienced with wikipedia, and not just the posers. Take a break, get some coffee to clear you mind a bit. KarmaKameleon 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Where do you get the idea that I am 'trying to delete the information in the article'?" From this edit and this edit, maybe? You're the one who nominated it for deletion and then you reiterated that "Delete" would be an acceptable outcome to you. I'm done with this; you've proven your bad faith. One moment you claim that the rules are the rules and "you can't argue with them" and then when that ceases to be convenient, you suddenly claim that you're just trying to make sure all sides are heard. One or the other might have been believable, but you're trying to switch sides as it suits your needs of the moment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's called going throught the process, sonny. And you said you're more experienced? I still don't understand why you're upset and losing your civility. A break will do you good. Run along... KarmaKameleon 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Where do you get the idea that I am 'trying to delete the information in the article'?" From this edit and this edit, maybe? You're the one who nominated it for deletion and then you reiterated that "Delete" would be an acceptable outcome to you. I'm done with this; you've proven your bad faith. One moment you claim that the rules are the rules and "you can't argue with them" and then when that ceases to be convenient, you suddenly claim that you're just trying to make sure all sides are heard. One or the other might have been believable, but you're trying to switch sides as it suits your needs of the moment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. "Ignore all rules" applies to the rule your trying to set. Maybe you should read what you write, and realize all of it applies to you too. ultimately these rules/guidelines meant to consider all sides. Also, where do you get the idea that I am "trying to delete the information in the article"? If you're confused by the title of the project, that wasn't my own. Look at my vote I'm leaving a lot of option for those who are 'truly' experienced with wikipedia, and not just the posers. Take a break, get some coffee to clear you mind a bit. KarmaKameleon 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- So basically, based on your vast experience with Wikipedia which just reached ten edits, you're absolutely sure that following a guideline means applying the first sentence rigidly and ignoring everything after that first sentence. (Interesting that that first sentence, which came first because it was clearly the most important one, wasn't even in the article a month and a half ago.[2]) As for "Might as well not have them if no one's going to follow them", I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; maybe then you'll start to understand that Wikipedians are not only allowed to but expected to ask the question of which situations call for application of a guideline or policy, and which situations call for the guideline or policy itself to be modified. In particular, I think this AfD has illustrated a need to clarify that adding a well-known prefix such as "non-" to a well-known root word is not enough to create a "neologism" of the sort Wikipedia is trying to avoid. I am not ordinarily a fan of WP:IAR but if you actually think you're acting in the spirit of Wikipedia by trying to delete the information in the article just because some page you found in the Wikipedia namespace said "avoid neologisms" (not "seek and destroy neologisms", I must observe) then you really need far more experience with Wikipedia before you get anywhere near AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- And would'nt that be nice? I disagree that in the "real world", we choose not the follow the guideline. Might as well not have them, if no ones going to follow them. There's no "misapplication" of guideline here, it's a total ignoring of it. The guideline is as plain as it can get and there's a reason why what I quoted was the first one. It needs to be applied first before the other. KarmaKameleon 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If it were that easy there would be no AfD discussions. This is, however, the real world, and yes, we can "argue with that", and we may be arguing based on experience that you haven't had. For instance, you seem to think that "it is a guideline" means "it is an unalterable rule to which no exceptions can be considered", but more experienced Wikipedians understand that not even policy is the sort of "don't discuss, just obey" rule you seem to think it is -- and guidelines less so than policy. For another, we realize that it is very possible to misapply guidelines and policies (because hey, sometimes people have ulterior motives, and they try to pose as "only following the rules" when what they're really doing is trying to stretch the rules.) Speaking of misapplying guidelines, you quoted the part of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms that defined neologisms; did you also read the part about "Sometimes, experienced grammarians who know the meanings of prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and other -fix words might make articles about those words"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep or Merge as needed - I concur with User:Durova. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Even recognized denominations, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, are nontrinitarian.--HistoricalPisces 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- The issue is there's no dictionary entry or book that describes and uses the term. It only appears in wikipedia and it's clones. KarmaKameleon 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)