Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McChurch

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 Speedy Keep per here, under A1. SynergeticMaggot 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McChurch

Term is a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary —Hanuman Das 01:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge verifiable criticism to Megachurch and delete. —Hanuman Das 01:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems pretty well referenced, and I get 42,800 Google hits, so it's hardly a neologism by our standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a 16-year-old USA Today reference takes the 'neo' out of neologism here. --DarkAudit 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan - the term is notable. Kalani ^[talk] 02:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. -- Gogo Dodo 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. plus, use of Mc Church and Megachurch are differently connoted and not interchangeable, and the former is not just a subset of the latter, so a merge is not appropriate. --Svartalf 09:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, term is notable per the USA Today reference. Not a neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The article places the word in its cultural context, so it works for me. (I.e. it's not a dictdef.) Geogre 12:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per McWorld. bd2412 T 19:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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.