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 redirect to Catholic (term). Well, seems like the consensus is that this is not a suitable article and if anything its creation should be discussed before actually creating it. I see no clear consensus between "delete" and "redirect to Catholic (term)" seeing as it seems like the arguments against the redirect can be reasonably addressed by indefinite full protection. Since redirecting is preferred to deletion (per WP:ATD-R), thus redirect and fully protect forever. I'll punt any fine tuning of the redirect beyond this to WP:RFD which is better equipped to handle "redirect or no page?" questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amending this close to delete and redirect per request on my talk page; it doesn't seem like there is any desire or reason to keep the page history and some concern that it will be misused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Catholic Church[edit]

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

I am pulling this out of the New Articles queue for community input as to whether it should or should not exist as a freestanding article. I believe this to be a POV fork of Catholic Church, which already includes the core content from the "Terminology" section. An edit note by the article creator states: "Encyclopedic relevance for a forked article Name of the Catholic Church in equivalence with that of Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other arguably less prominent naming controverises listed in Category:Naming controversies." I believe the lead section, as written, illustrates the POV intent of the piece: "...the name has sometimes been a subject of dispute due to its perceived unjust pretentions of exclusivity by proponents of other Christian denominations, most notably by Protestants during the 17th-19th centuries. Although these objections have been refuted on respective arguments of the right of self-designation, some public authorities, encyclopedias, media outlets and individuals have insisted on maintaining a criticial stance as implied to this retention until this day." Carrite (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- I do not think it contains anything substantial that is not in Catholic (term). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Catholic Church#Name I'd have thought, but could be Catholic (term). Contains very little that isn't in Catholic Church#Name, and what is there is POV. TSP (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content here worth saving. Redirects are too-easily hijacked. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only differences it has with other articles is where it is obviously factually challenged. For such a short piece, it has a lot of "differences with other articles". Anmccaff (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People easily confuse the meaning of the word "catholic" with the name of this church. The issues involving "Roman" are also of general interest. Unscintillating (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no, this is part of the on-going Catholic-naming dispute (probably the longest naming dispute in existence on en.wiki, lasting well over a decade) and is a POV-fork from the main Catholic Church article. The main contributor to this article is one of the leading main proponents of removing the Roman disambiguator from Wikipedia, and if this article were to continue to exist, I'm confident it would be only as a POV-fork. Why salt? There actually *might* be a time when this is warranted if consensus develops to split bits and pieces from the main article and other articles into one article, but that would require explicit consensus and is best judged by an uninvolved admin. This is similar to why Catholic Church is move protected, and would mirror that.
Why no redirect: this is a highly implausible search term and the history contains very dubious claims such as the first two sentences which state The name of the Catholic Church is typically derived from Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated for the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II in 1992. Attributed constitutional bearing, it sums up the teachings of the church., where I can see two claims that have no sourcing and I would argue very strongly are just plain false. If it is redirected, which I don't think would be helpful to the reader, the article should be deleted first and the redirect full protected for the reasons I gave in support of salting above: explicit consensus is needed to create this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (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.