Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity collision


 * 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 -- JForget 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinity collision

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article cites no coverage of the concept of the "Trinity collision" in any third-party reliable sources, and is believed to constitute original research. John254 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, purely original research. Only citations are Bible verses or dictionary definitions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above (OR). Although I don't think speedy applies here. - Rjd0060 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Preserve!: It's a label I and a few other people have agreed fit this specific Bible contradiction. This contradiction of logic and dogmatic teaching is legit and should be talked about. The original idea for it came from a discussion |here. Someone else will be coming to edit this soon to make it probably a bit more informational and understandable, I just wanted to get the article started. Please don't delete it! It's not meant to be offensive or flamatory, it's just pointing out a logical contradiction that exists, undeniably. I believe we can talk about responses to this too, and should. Please don't delete it, at least let us get a final product up! :) Compu73rg33k 04:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thing thought up one day on a discussion forum. Galteglise 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and, I suppose, Compu73rg33k. Maxamegalon2000 07:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No third party references and seems pretty thin to have its own page anyway. Alberon 10:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Compu73rg33k. See WP:MADEUP. A Wikipedia entry is not the right way to promote one's terminology. Not to mention that there are a whole bunch of people who would regard the article itself as POV, (including the entire WikiProject Christianity team) but that's another matter entirely. --Blanchardb 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The apparent contradiction this article addresses is already discussed in the article Trinity with no POV tag. --Blanchardb 13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Compu73rg33k. The fact that "you and a few other people" use the term does not make it notable.  Get your ideas, and your use of the term published by a reliable publishing house, get the term into widespread use, and it is much more likely.  Pastordavid 21:08, 15 November 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.