Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian fatwah

Modify & retain for the lexiconic value of an often, and increasingly, used phrase of potential good meaning and value. Indeed, progressive linguistic evolution is helped, not harmed, by new "neologisms" with a firm foundation in philosophical fact, logic, or wisdom. Surely, an encyclopedia should not eschew such entries just because they are transcendental to mathematical and scientific facts and speak well to the philosophical, theological, religious, moral, ethical, and spiritual concerns of mankind... Richard s 8-16-05


 * It's not "often" used, for one -- certainly not in any significant context. It's a neologism, which WP has a long history of not supporting, or if you like, a slang term that lacks common acceptance.  The phrase is no more significant than "Bhuddist Imperative," a completely worthless phrase I just cranked out for fun.  Sure, "Bhuddist" and "Imperative" have "philosophical, theological, religious, moral, ethical, and spiritual" significance... but not together in an established fashion.
 * If you want to write an article on such a concept, though, consider Papal decrees or the like, as they're a close approximation of the literal translation. However, bear in mind that a major (and the official) reason for VfD is the format of the article.  Encyclopedias do not ask "what do you think?" -- they present known and documented information.
 * Also, it's a good idea to sign your comments with "~ ~ ~ ~" (sans spaces) Lomn | Talk 21:35:09, 2005-08-16 (UTC)


 * Lomn,thanks for trying to help this newbie. Indeed, this seems an overwhelming website that leaves me feeling quite cyber challenged.  Even as i type i am not sure this reply will get to you, or, if it does, not sure it will be in a readable format.  Until i feel comfortable and more aware of Wiki-conventions and logistics, i will not be able to converse with other Wikipedians to any great extent; and, if there is nothing in the "Christian Fatwah" worth modifying and retaining, so be it. Thanks again for your replies and i will work on understanding the ":"'s and the Richard s 23:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)'s  Richard s 8-16-05