Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbi dei minister

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) buff bills 7701 12:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verbi dei minister[edit]

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

No expansion in 10 months. See article's Talk page. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is no deadline, even if one has been declared on the talk page. Google Books finds hundreds of books using the phrases, though some of those appear to be written in Latin, and I presume that at least some of them are passing uses in, for example, the author's name. Note, however, this definition and description, for example. Cnilep (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in the link you provided (after removing the suffix for Google's Japanese site), as well as various other results from Google Books, the term has generally been used to give the appearance of accreditation (basically, because something Latin makes it seem special), without actually having any accreditation at all. The term merits mention at related articles, but does not seem to warrant its own article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs expansion not deletion which is not the sole responsibility of the creator but whole wikipedia community. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding use of the title to give the appearance of accreditation: The religious or professional bona fides of people who use the title are not relevant to the question of deletion. Notability, verifiability, and the possibility of writing an article without original research are relevant. Cnilep (talk) 04:40, 13 January 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.