Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovering catholic


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Recovering catholic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Title is a neologism, subject is non-notable. Original author wrote un-encyclopedic sounding sentences without sources. Has since been edited and sourced by others, but still short and still neologism. Original author has done no other work. Content reads as biased. Subject matter is covered sufficiently in other articles in more encyclopedic manner. Klopek007 (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete By WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary there should not be an article on an expression itself, although there are some anyway. (I guess by WP:Ignore all rules.) The topic of former Catholics should be covered somewhere, but under a neutral title. Borock (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is an article on Lapsed Catholic, but the article that's up for deletion differentiates between the two terms. However, the differentiation is unsourced. Before committing one way or the other, I'd like to see a source for that, but I will say that I'm not impressed by the sources there right now. For example, "The Complete Idiot's Guide" series should hardly be taken as the final word on anything. Kansan (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to above: Besides just Lapsed Catholic, the subject matter is sufficiently covered in Apostasy in Christianity, as well as various articles on religion/agnosticism/atheism in general. Klopek007 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage there is good enough for me, then. Kansan (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is already a lapsed Catholic article, this is a bit of Urban Dictionary-ish work on a neologism. The term has an inherently POV-laced connotation, I note, an ironic pairing of "recovering alcoholic" with "Catholic." —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
 * Delete as a neologism without widespread coverage in serious sources. Kansan (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the Google News and Google Books above, there are PLENTY of reliable sources which use this term. Calling it a neologism ignores this evidence, and I see no evidence that any above !voters have made any effort to use the basic tools to search for sources on this term. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, I have flagged the article for rescue and will likely be adding sources from these searches over the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely having sources does not make something worthy of wikipedia, nor does it change the fact that the title, as noted above, has "inherently POV-laced connotation." Klopek007 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So? Need I bring up that we have an article on nigger, perhaps the most beyond-the-pale inherently POV-laced word in modern English? Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the controversy surrounding that term is why it's there. It's been in use for hundreds of years, and these days some insist that it's only ok for certain people to say. Unless "recovering catholic" is actively trying to be made into a slur, then it can't even compare to "nigger"; and even then it would be like comparing a puddle to a lake. Just because there's an article for the most well known racial slur (nigger) doesn't justify having an article for EVERY slur. As noted above, this belongs on urban dictionary, not wikipedia, although it could certainly find a home on a "list of" type article. Further, this term inexplicably picks out a specific denomination rather than Christianity as a whole, or even religion as a whole. That absolutely screams biased POV. Klopek007 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, but we cover what reliable sources cover, regardless of whether it's pejorative or not. Any other outcome would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Censorship is not the issue at all. It's a silly little neologism that's not widespread. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a soapbox. Again, the subject matter that this article is intended to deal with is fully covered in Lapsed Catholic and Apostasy in Christianity in a far more intellectual manner. Klopek007 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Klopek007. This word doesn't have much in common with the N-word other than that both could be perceived as offensive. Entire books have been written concerning the use of nigger, so its situation is not that similar to this. Kansan (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonfiction sources dealing with the term include the following from the first two pages of the Google Books search:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Pay special attention to the fifth link there--there's clearly enough usage to write a decent article on the phrase and its evolution. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, definitely some decent sources there. Seems like the article would mainly be an abridged version of all the books, though. Perhaps re-name it "List of books entitled Recovering Catholic"? I say this because while I'm sure the authors make some good points, I've still never heard it in common usage. Admittedly, my opinion of deletion is slightly weakened, especially if this article had a competent author. Still think delete though, for reasons already stated. Klopek007 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If that were all the sources that existed, that might be appropriate, but in fact it's just the smallest of surface-scratches. I haven't even looked at the Google Scholar link yet. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per ubiquitous search results and per Jclemens. This article seemed like a good example of the use of the word.  Article needs major cleanup.  The term is probably somewhat insulting to practicing Catholics, and so hopefully some of the delete !votes above are not being influenced by that.    Snotty Wong   speak 22:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The example you provided is more of an op-ed, which newspaper readers are often free to write. Using a term in an opinion piece does not indicate that it is notable. Kansan (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But Op-Eds don't just use a word, undefined, if it's a non-notable neologism. If it's used in such a manner as this example, it means the author expects that his or her audience will understand the term and its implications.  Sure, it's not a detailed etymological analysis of the term... but it is evidence of its common usage. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on large number of Google News and Google Book search, showing the term is well used in this context.   D r e a m Focus  11:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that I've had a chance to upgrade the article, there are 8 books that are referenced in the article or used as further reading; no more than 2-3 appear to be self-published, and no editor has posted a "delete" !vote since I posted research to validate the term was neither a neologism (note multiple reliable sources from 1992) nor non-notable. I've also removed the OR, linked relevant other articles, added it to a few relevant categories, and essentially fixed all the major outstanding problems with the article that the nominator and initial !voters complained about. WP:HEY applies. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources now.,    DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there still plans to expand beyond stub form? Perhaps alternate viewpoints so as to achieve NPOV? Klopek007 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to point out and fix the deficiencies you see using reliable sources. What POV do you think is missing? Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps response from Catholics, both layman and clergy; view of atheists/agnostics who have never been religious at any point in life. Wynn Wagner's book is included for further reading, but no views from that are mentioned. Honestly I don't have much experience with stubs, nor with the deletion/rescue process. Klopek007 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Improvement can and should continue beyond the AfD process--ideally, it's supposed to be ongoing throughout the article's lifecycle. Wagner's book looks interesting, and even though it appears self-published I think "archbishop" would qualify him as an expert in Catholicism. I don't have access to it, though, since Google books doesn't appear to have preview access. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (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.