Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Protestants

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. Sr 13 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Protestants

Where did the definition of Proto-Protestant come from? I can't find one online. The term proto-protestant appears to be a neologism as no clear definition can be found. The term is unknown in the trusted Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and I have the latest edition. The only cites on the page are ones I made to try and salvage the article, but in truth even some of MY corrections are original research, as well. With no agreed upon terminology, original research becomes mandatory. The term is used on the internet, but nobody seems to know what constitues a Proto-Protestant. It is used to describe everyone from St. Paul the Apostle all the way up to and including Jan Huss. Delete for WP:OR and WP:NEO. -- SECisek 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The one sourced paragraph begins "Almost as soon as the Reformation began, scholars began searching for historical antecedents for the new sects." That describes the article itself before SECisek tried to fix it. The article is a POV mess, and I suspect the term itself is a POV neologism used by Protestant apologists. Any useful information would be more suited to inclusion in Protestantism, mostly in either the existing Origins section or a section on apologetics. Anomie 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of reliable sources talking about this term (WP:NEO) Corpx 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more sources can be found, merge with Protestantism. If not, burn with fire, per all of the above. --Boricuaeddie 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I added the reflist, found the interview cited, read it, and the expert refutes the entire point of the article. It smells of POV, NEO, and OR. Agree with the nom, Anomie and Boricuaeddie. Bearian 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete An article about the pre-Luther challenges to the Catholic church would be excellent, and I'm sure that there are books and encylopedia articles that speak to the origin of the Reformation. But this one appears to be based entirely on interview with Lori Anne Ferrell on PBS. Regardless of whether Ferrell is a red-link or a blue-link, that's not an article. Bearian's review of the interview shows that the lack of substance isn't the only problem. Some Baptists trace their denomination's origin back to "John the", which is no less inaccurate... sort of a protoprotoprotestant, perhaps. Mandsford 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "'Baptist' was his job, not his religious affiliation!" ;) Anomie 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baptism... it's not just a job, it's an adventure!Mandsford 14:44, 28 July 2007 (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.