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 was Delete.—Quarl(talk) 2007-04-08 09:20Z
No useful Google hits, nothing links there, first ref (the only one online) has no mention of term; probable hoax. cesarb 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. The word was privately coined, but the article still represents an interesting set of beliefs. It would still have NPOV problems, though. StAnselm 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. StAnselm 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming this was a good faith article, it's still WP:NEO and WP:OR at best. --Action Jackson IV 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a hoax, it's rather soapboxy and either way not worth inclusion. Arkyan • (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of any publication outside the originators using the term-- as the article says, "Sinaiticism was coined by New Covenant Congregation of Israel Charlotte Tabernacle Elohim (NCCI-Charlotte)." --and they don't even list a publication of their own using it. (The references are general)If its use becomes wider, than it would justify an article, though this is a self-admittedly POV article. The material duplicates other material in the existing articles for Messianic Judaism. Some part of the views are also held by other groups. There tend to be strong views on articles in this area, so I would definitely let this AfD run for the full time. DGG 21:15, 4 April 2007 (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.