Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apotactics


 * 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, but one article still needs to be merged. Non admin closure. Undeath (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apotactics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. It is horribly written too. Possible copyvio in some sections. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Catholic Encyclopedia is viewed as a reliable source and this group is notable as it is relevent to the history of Christianity. However, the article does need to be substantially edited for style and content and some more sources couldn't hurt.Nrswanson (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google and Google Books hits are sufficient to establish notability. One can't violate the copyright of a public-domain source, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is properly credited in the article. I've done a bit of minor cleanup on the article. Deor (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that we have another article on the same group at Apotactite (that one's based on the article in the 11th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica rather than on the Catholic Encyclopedia article). If the decision here is "keep", one of these articles should be merged into the other to avoid duplication. Deor (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and redirected Apotactite to this article. They should stand and fall together, in any event, and this is the more detailed article. It's title also seems more in line with the titles of many of the other articles in . Deor (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Deor (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An historical, obscure sect, perhaps, but the AfD is completely unfounded--You can't copyvio public domain works, The Catholic Encyclopedia is RS for this topic, and cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Before nominating an article as non-notable, please take the short time necessary to search for the term at . In light of the overwhelming number of references there, going well back into the 19th century, it would be appropriate for the nominator to withdraw this to avoid further embarassment. I added two to the article for good measure. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.) Don't insult me by saying that this is turning into an embarassment. I take no embarrassment from any AfD and nor should anyone else. People should never openly insinuate that something embarrassing has happened either. I won't close the AfD until it's over. I didn't like the fact that the catholic encyclopedia was the only source given at the time of nomination. I also don't think this article is properly written. It almost sounded like a catholic fanatic wrote it to praise the catholic religion and put down those who oppose it.(who were called Heretics in the article, but it was worded as if the person writing the article meant that people who oppose his belief are still heretical) Undeath (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By nominating an article for deletion, you are advocating that it be deleted from an encyclopedia. Please read WP:DEL and explain which of those reasons apply.  Note specifically these three:
 * Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions
 * Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Does Apotactics meet any of these? Even assuming the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't an RS, which it is, an article being not sourced requires that the nominator search for sources before deletion before asserting that "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".  Since a simple Google Books search finds a plethora, with full text, I strongly suspect no search was done.  Further, note that even if the article fails to demonstrate notability, the deletion criteria require that the "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline".
 * Certainly, you're not alone in AfD'ing stubs that should never have been AfD'ed. And you're right, it's really your choice, not mine, whether to be embarassed by the lack of congruence between your nomination and the Apotactics article. At any rate, you now have a full explanation why I find it completely unfounded and why I would be embarassed to have submitted it. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Woah! Calm down Undead warrior and Jclemens. This is not helpful. Everyone stop WP:BITEing Undead warrior. I think everyone here can admit that he added the tag in good faith, and the responses here should be civil. Let's not turn this page into a heated discussion simply because people feel insulted instead of respected. Undead warrior, I agree with you that the language does need to reflect a more neutral view and should therefore be significantly reworded. However, the correct response to this situation would have been to tag the article for neutrality and for one source rather than an AFD. I don't think it unreasonable for other editors to point this out to you (although they should be more civil) as it really is not the best way to handle these sort of issues. I myself have made similar mistakes when I first started doing AFD noms and have since learned that tags are often the better way to go if a subject meets notability requirements but may not meet other standards upheld on wikipedia. If you are not familiar with the different tags available and their usage please check out Template messages/Cleanup. Cheers!Nrswanson (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- This is obviously an article on a notable (though minor) subject. The criterion for AFD is not that article has no reliable sources cited, but there are no reliable sources. This is a common problem in WP. The answer to it is to look for sources, not to nominate for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.