Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triclavianism


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Triclavianism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. The article consists of a definition of Triclavianism, the assertion that the number of nails used to crucify Jesus has been debated for centuries (but not that this debate is of any great importance, or that the belief in three was ever popular or significant), and also a long quotation from a single book that itself only established that some people believed this, but does not say why this should be significant. The Storm Surfer 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable. The quotation does a good job of explaining why the matter was debated, and why it is important. As the quotation indicates, St. Francis of Assisi, a major figure in the history of the Catholic Church and an ally of Pope Innocent III, had stigmata from four nails. Innocent's enemies wanted to discredit St. Francis, and did so in part by promoting Triclavianism. Although the article doesn't mention it, there is also an art history angle to this. Over the centuries artists portraying the Crucifixion have gradually changed from using two to three and now four nails. Thus the fact that a religious painting uses a triclavianist (as opposed to biclavianist or quadriclavianist) depiction gives a valuable clue to when it was painted. Andrel 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, my primary rational is based on what i've already noted on the article talk page, in summary, the author of the quotation in the article appears to be the only highly notable source that is verifiable who uses this term, the Catholic Encyclopedia external link doesn't use the word, the google search offered on the talk page isn't for the same word, the only other halfway notable sources i've seen for this term are a parody website and Stormfront.org, and because this single author being quoted appears to be the only really notable person who uses the term, I think this article fails the spirit of WP:NEO, while one notable and verifiable source seems to use the term, that person seems to be pretty much the end of it. Homestarmy 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has an entry on triclavianism. It is a real word, albeit obscure. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the websites you cite, the word is still in modern use. Andrel 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the websites I cite were cited by myself because they are not very notable websites in and of themselves for this topic. (And because they seemed to be basically the only two) Homestarmy 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the websites themselves are notable is a red herring. There are many technical terms in Wikipedia which one would be hard-pressed to find on any "notable" websites.  --joXn 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the websites themselves are notable is not a red herring. (See how easy and fun it is to make blanket accusations about people's comments? :D ) Technical terms on Wikipedia that do not have notability to them should be deleted, their existance simply means the process is not 100 percent effective at deleting 100 percent of deletable articles 100 percent of the time. Even if they do have notability, if they are just dictionary definitions, they certainly fail WP:NOT a dictionary, no matter how notable they are, and should be transcluded to Wiktionary. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the argument that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" seems a little specious. The point is that the word is notable enough to have made it into the premier English-language historical dictionary.  Granted, the purpose of an encyclopedia is a more thorough explanation of a concept than a mere dictionary entry, and granted, this article does not yet have such an explanation, nevertheless there is more to the concept than the mere definitional "The belief that Christ was crucified with only three nails".  As mentioned below, this means only that the article is currently a stub. --joXn 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Andrel's initial counter-argument consisted entirely of "It's in a dictionary, it must be notable enough to keep on Wikipedia.", and going on that alone, I saw little recourse but to mention WP:NOT a dictionary. I already gave my hand at looking for more on this topic to expand the article with and came up with what I wrote on the talk page, and as far as I know, there is nothing more notable to this concept than a single author's mention of the word. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * keep Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism. DGG 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep The article could be more expansive on the theological and art-historical applicability of the concept of "triclavianism", but that just means that it is a stub. The concept itself is interesting and of historical importance.  --joXn 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This may seem like just being silly, but now I feel compelled to call your attention to WP:INTERESTING, though of course if the term's historical importance could be demonstrated, (One long quote from but a single historian and no sources which could be trusted much on history doesn't seem very important to me) then the article should indeed probably be kept. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (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.