Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular saint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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). —Qst 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secular saint

Secular saint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research, unverified claims, synthesis. I flagged this some time ago and added an in-line citation but can't get the article up to par. Majoreditor 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: Does need quite a bit of work, and it's unfortunate that the work hasn't been done as of yet. There are a few references, which makes it at least somewhat notable. - Rjd0060 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep given more sources are added to clearly define what a secular saint means. Remove the original research if you must. — Save_Us_229 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep appears to be a common term, and is in the titles of both scholarly and news articles per various Google searches. The rationale for the nomination suggests clean-up and not deletion is the way to go. ~Eliz81(C) 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rdj0060. Needs work, but is a notable term. Could use more sources and a bit of work. BeanoJosh 08:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. AfD is not cleanup, and it seems like a notable term, but it's not the perfect article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - through the assertion of notability by provision of references. Rudget zŋ 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as clearly notable, just needs cleanup. Bearian 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The term seems to have some use, but does not have widespread use or use in particularly notable. I suggest trans-wiki the term as a dict-def. Pastordavid 21:05, 15 November 2007 (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.