Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arian controversy

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arian controversy[edit]

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

The article as it stands is almost entirely WP:Primary Source (90+%?), much of it is essentially listings, and its theme is adequately covered in the article Arianism. It would be simpler and more productive to concentrate on improving this latter article than mounting a major operation to rescue this one — Jpacobb (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and improve. WP:Primary Source is not a reason to delete an entire article. tahc ^chat 00:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Socrates of Constantinople, the most-cited source, wrote 100 years after the fact. While I agree more modern sources should be integrated into this article, it would be quite ridiculous to argue that SoC was a "primary source" that constitutes OR. Should be salvaged per WP:POTENTIAL. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 00:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Plainly and clearly a notable subject. If there's overlap with Arianism, cleanup could be used to bring it more into line with Summary Style... basically, this is a major part of the subject of Arianism, and I fully believe that just the historical controversy is worthy of an article, which should be summarized in the main Arianism article and then expanded on here. Both Arianism and its controversy have PLENTY to be written about them. Fieari (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom failed to make an appropriate rationale per WP:DEL so it doesn't matter. I would point out that WP:POTENTIAL is just an essay and I'd counter with WP:JUNK. That said, the subject is notable, the content is cited, and the citations are verifiable with a couple trips to the library. It's an ugly article and re-creates most of what Arianism already covers but I don't think there's a WP:NUKEANDPAVE argument here. I'd prefer to see an interested editor userfy this mess and re-work it but that isn't likely. The problem with inclusionism is that !voting keep while admitting the article has real shortfalls results in subpar articles. Deletionism removes the offending content and there's no mess left to clean up. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate appropriately. I agree we don't need separate articles, and one should likely be a redirect to the other... but merging seems such a better option than deleting one, especially since per WP:CWW we can't use deleted material without a lot of extra attribution work. Merging one to the other--and I have no strong preference which--is clearly a better solution. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An article using contemporary chronicles and the like is actually relying on the most reliable sources. Anything more recent can only be a commentary on those. A bit of historiography and the odd citation of modern works providing such commentary might be useful, not no way should we even think of deleting as substantial and well-sourced article as this one. In the early days of WP, the use of primary sources was deplored, as it is liable to produce WP:OR (commonly called unreliable inventions), but WP has moved on a long way from that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (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.