The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism[edit]

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]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[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/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)[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) 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)[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]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • "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)[reply]
              • 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) It's probably a safe bet you have more post than anyone who so far voted here, even some sysops. But unlike you they just keep cool, vote and let the process take care of itself. KarmaKameleon 21:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment. If I may jump in... Antaeus, I think your original comment in this sub-discussion here might be considered to be violation of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:NPA. I see no evidence whatsoever that the nomination was in any way malformed or in bad faith. My personal opinion is that its a good nomination, and in fact I boted to merge the article. It's true that the information in the article should not just be thrown away, but a merge consensus is often a good and appropriate result of an article brought to attention via AfD. I also don't see why a new editor cannot lurk for a while and begin her editing career in AfD, if that is the path she chooses, and as long as her nominations are made in good faith and are properly formed, as here.Herostratus 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think that is an unwarranted accusation on your part, Herostratus. My "original comment in this sub-discussion" was that KarmaKameleon "might be better advised to spend more time participating in other Wikipedia activities to get a feel for Wikipedia before initiating AfDs." If KarmaKameleon were to double his/her edit count in the next five minutes it still wouldn't bring him/her up to what Wikipedia considers the standard "voting age". In what way is it biting a newbie to say "Hey, maybe you shouldn't jump right into the deep end of the pool"? As for not assuming good faith, I did assume good faith -- when that was still a reasonable assumption. By the time KK was saying "It's a guideline and you can't argue with that," there were two possibilities left: that KK was acting in bad faith, trying to get the information in the article deleted or marginalized in order to push POV, or that KK, being so new to Wikipedia, did not yet grasp that neither guidelines nor policies have that inalterable "you can't argue with that" quality he/she claimed for Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. But when KK suddenly switched tracks, from 'there's no other correct interpretation of the guideline and the guideline is inalterable' to 'Ignore All Rules? Sure, poser, we'll start by pretending you're trying to make new rules and use that as an excuse to ignore you' it became clear that KK was not trying to argue the deletion of the article as a means to the end of obeying the rules (which would be misguided, but a mistake a newbie could make in good faith) but instead was pressing for the deletion of the article as his/her end, and was willing to switch as needed between the standards of 'we need robotic compliance to The Rules' or 'hey, I'm just trying to examine all options when I propose deletion' in pursuit of that goal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm sure that KK is sincere at some level, but unfortunately KK started participating in Wikipedia by immediately trying to jump to an advanced level of procedures, and by presenting a proposal which it is only too easy to interpret as motivated more by technical lawyering than a desire to improve Wikipedia. The fact that KK's non-AfD contributions are mainly misspelled semi-grammatical edits to the first-paragraphs of large "mature" articles like Christianity and Trinity (which have been quickly reverted) doesn't do anything to dispel this unfortunate impression. AnonMoos 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, I understand your point there, but KK doesn't have a real track record. I mean new editors need guidance. I mean, lots of editors, their first work is "DOES THIS WORK???" or whatever. There's no danger of the contents of the article being removed (a merge or move is possible), so don't let being upset of it being AfD'd be cause to forget WP:BITE. Also, I am trying to set the indent record here. Herostratus
• Keep or Merge as needed - I concur with User:Durova. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even recognized denominations, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, are nontrinitarian.--HistoricalPisces 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Merge with Unitarianism. I always thought that Unitarianism = Nontrinitarianism. Is there a difference? Even if so, it should be discussed in the merged article. (True, there is also a church called "Unitarian", but it's properly styled Unitarian Universalist and has its own article). I hate to recommend Merges because that means extra work for somebody, but I think in this case its necessary. (Nontrinitariansm could remain as a redirect to Unitarianism.) Herostratus 12:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In actual usage, Unitarianism as a stand-alone term most often refers to one historical trend of Christian Protestantism in Europe and America from the 17th through the 19th century (as seen in the article). Furthermore, not all non-Trinitarians are Unitarians! AnonMoos 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nontrinitarianism is quite distinct from Unitarianism, and much older, going back to the heresy of Arius. Chick Bowen 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The word used in the Catholic Encyclopedia is Antitrinitarianism but this of course is the Catholic pov, cite: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm 64.169.5.159 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that Antitrinitarianism is "POV" exactly, but you do bring up an interesting point, in that many of those who hold non-Trinitarian views consider that they have positively valid religious doctrines, and don't want to be negatively defined as merely being "anti-"something. AnonMoos 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.