Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clergyman-naturalist

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clergyman-naturalist[edit]

Unreferenced, hasn't been touched in almost 2 years, and lacks notability. Also possibly covered by other articles, rendering this one redundant. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for clergyman-naturalist -wikipedia returned less that 400 results, few actually relevant to this definition; definately not notable -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that this may in fact be a neologism , original research, or just a combined dictionary definition. This combination of terms is not widely accepted and fails WP:A Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this falls under WP:IINFO as a loosely connected topic. Naturalists came from many walks of life with the same necessary attributes as the clergy. (Some money, and more time, basically.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is conspicuously absent here. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all I believe that this is a WP:NEOlogism. Next, it is most likely WP:OR/a WP:VANITY page made about someone who was a clergyman-naturalist. And lastly it's not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wondered about the origin. Creator Duncharris (talk · contribs) disappeared later that year after increasing frustration judging by tetchy edit summaries. But prior to that the editor was an apparently valuable contributor to botany and naturalist articles. It doesn't appear to have been created to support a particular article judging by nearby edits. Well, Duncharris isn't here to ask. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (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.