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 keep. and move to Christian Ashram Movement, leaving no redirect. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This seems to have no sources which substantiate that it is notable according to our guidelines. It has no book results for the term. Previous nomination didn't get enough votes. Alternately, redirect to Bede Griffiths. He seems to be notable, but the the term "Wisdom Christianity" doesn't even appear in this book about him, or this one. So it's pretty clear it isn't notable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a lack of sources; the "most famous church" subscribing to this thought has a red link; the article does not have much to say about the movement. Generally, this doesn't seem notable enough here at this point. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which redlink is that? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what I wrote further on about the encyclopaedist's equivalent of not looking beyond the end of one's nose, too. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 07:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For no reason? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 07:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator is in error. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I can find no substantial references to it in Gscholar or Gbooks. Keep. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because, like the nominator, you didn't read the books already helpfully cited at the bottom of the article to find out the actual name of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The actual names of this subject, discoverable through reading some of the several books pointed-to at the bottom of the article, and documented in several other books to boot, are the Christian Ashram Movement and Christian sannyasa. Use the handy little tool ⇗ and read all about it. This is a perfectly valid subject, documented in books that link all of the people mentioned in the "see also" section of the article together under its umbrella, and the article at the time of nomination even pointed to sources from which could be found what it was actually called. Some of those books are even encyclopaedias (such as Fahlbusch's Encyclopaedia of Christianity, volume 2, for example). It merely needs renaming to one or other of the titles, from this title (which is the product of misunderstanding a WWW source it seems). I prefer the first title, since the second seems to be used more when talking about Abhishiktananda and seems to be the less generally used name. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds good. Did you know that already or are you just a perceptive researcher? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the fact that I always employ the amnesia test, per User:Uncle G/On notability#Tips for editors, anyway, I'd never heard of this until the article came up at AFD. I just looked through one of the books pointed to in the external links section of the article at the time of nomination — the first book listed, no less — did a very simple keyword search and found the name of the movement right there on page 235. You can see with the handy little tool ⇗ what knowing the name leads to. The clues were right there in the article, and my pointing out how the proper name of the subject is discoverable is based upon how I discovered it.

      Personally, I wouldn't leave a redirect behind at Wisdom Christianity.

      I find it ironic that Backtable wanted to delete the article simply because another article on a related subject was a redlink (and this article wasn't finished with comprehensive coverage of the subject, yet). Aside from the fact that it was not a redlink when I wrote the above, that bespeaks of zero effort on Backtable's part in doing the research necessary at AFD. Xe clearly did not even put the name of that (then) redlink into a search engine. Hoping that a linked article will explain things is the encyclopaedist's equivalent of not looking beyond the end of one's nose. We're supposed to be the people writing this encyclopaedia, which we know not to be complete yet. So we look outside of it for sources and information. That amount of research is a basic standard for being an encyclopaedist. As noted, this article even pointed to some of the things outwith the encyclopaedia to start by looking at. The irony is compounded by the fact that the article now contains more redlinks, indicating that not only is this a valid subject but that there are a few more valid subjects, that not only don't we yet have but apparently we didn't even know that we didn't have.

      Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable based on sources provided after nomination - then move over Christian Ashram Movement, which gets about 714 Google books hits compared to about 91 on Christian sannyasa. The article is primarily about the movement, with discussion about the practices a secondary topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aymatth2 and Uncle G.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on new info. Thanks Uncle G! — goethean ॐ 16:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't thank me. Thank 69.86.78.34 (talk · contribs) for doing this and providing the clues — some seven months before the first time that this was nominated for deletion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Christian Ashram Movement, the title that appears in the lead, and is currently a redirect to this article. This would result in this article being a redirect to that. However, the present title is misleading and the redirect should thus be deleted. Reverence for Hindu texts suggests that the movement has elements of syncretism with Hinduism. I have to dispute that is the result of "wisdom"; personally I regard it as folly. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the redirect after the move. A book search does not find the term. A web search gives various different personal definitions of "Wisdom Christianity". It does not seem to be a recognized theological term. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is fairly clear-cut. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For clarity, I think the consensus is:

1. Keep the content - the subject is clearly notable
2. Move it to Christian Ashram Movement, the natural title
3. Delete the redirect from Wisdom Christianity, which is not a reasonable search term

Any disagreement? I suppose steps 2. and 3. could be preceded by separate debates, but I don't think there is a need. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there's a need for separate debates, but otherwise I think this is a fair description of the consensus. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thanks people for the research (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I found some sources here and here. I made no assertion in the 1st AfD of how useful they were, and "voted" very weak keep, as I do again. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searches do show the two words Wisdom and Christianity occurring one after the other in many sources, usually separated by a comma or period. Occasionally, they are used to define a concept as in "... that I would call 'Wisdom Christianity', by which I mean ..." There is no consistency of meaning in these coinages. It is not an accepted theological term, making it a poor title even for a redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (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.