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. Sandstein 09:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle orthodoxy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long term stub with merge proposal, no sources and not particularly notable as something distinct from neo-Calvinism ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was something posted on the talk page five years ago indicating usage of the phrase, but that seems more naturally to fit into the Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer article. St Anselm (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose to Redirect to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer since Middle orthodoxy is a concept that is not unique to Berkouwer. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing for a complete delete of the article with no redirect for the term at all? The "form of neo-Calvinist theology" claim is unreferenced, and there is NO MENTION of "Middle orthodoxy" or of Berkouwer in the Neo-Calvinism article. You cannot redirect Middle orthodoxy to an article that does not mention the subject of the redirect! However, the Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer article DOES mention Middle orthodoxy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am. There is nothing to establish notability of this term such that an article or entry is justified. If the subject is notable, that's one thing... however even within the Berkouwer article, there are no references associated. If it is notable, then lets get some sources in the Berkouwer article, and talk about a redirect at that point. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that an article is not justified - but if the term exists someone might search Wikipedia for it. Rather than finding nothing, surely it is better for the searcher to be redirected to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (an article which mentions the phrase, and which can be used as a start point for other articles like Neo-Calvinism) rather than finding nothing? You yourself have said the term/concept exists and has at least some connection to Berkouwer. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for the term turns up little or no references... even outside of Wikipedia. I don't think that a name space for this term is justified. My vote for delete stands. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per ReformedArsenal (talk · contribs) deletion rationale. I have no idea of why the article should be Redirected to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer simply because the author of the article mention it in the article (a claim that was not adequately sourced). However, since no reliable sources establish the fact that Middle orthodoxy is a concept unique to Berkouwer, I strongly oppose such redirect. Wikicology (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.