Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ecclesiastical abbreviations

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) — Za wl 15:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ecclesiastical abbreviations[edit]

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

Ridiculously long glossary of abbreviations. None of this is noteworthy or sourced, nor is there any criteria for inclusion (what makes the word "otherwise" ecclesiastical?) If anything is salvageable, move it to wiktionary Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is, in part, sourced to a public domain encyclopedia, which effectively negates the two arguments advanced (non-notable and unsourced) by the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it may use improvements, it seems like relevant to me. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How does "delete it because there are too many things in it" work as an argument for deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The prose could stand some work (inline citations, etc.), but since this article was originally copied from a public-domain encyclopedia, it's really hard to argue that the topic is not, you know, like, encyclopedic. I don't see a real problem with inclusion criteria — the question isn't whether an English word is exclusively ecclesiastical, but whether its Latin translation has a standard abbreviation used in ecclesiastical sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a fairly worthy list article to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2018 (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.