Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesleycan

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. LFaraone 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleycan

Wesleycan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• Delete I agree with WikiDan61. There is no indication that anyone really uses this word. The creator of the article has no sources either, which further makes me suspicious of this term.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
• Delete Can't find any legitimate ghits. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One other thing I noticed was that the username of the creator is Wesleycan so this may just be a promotional page. Thus, I was strongly considering to have this page speedily deleted under G3 but we already began deletion discussion.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article's author has expanded it to discuss a broader topic of
  Wesleyan interpretation of theology, and bases this on a number of blogs as references. This topic might be notable, if better references could be found, or it might not if there are no other references to be found. If kept, the article would need to be renamed (perhaps as Wesleyan Anglican). As it stands, the article is not sufficiently sourced to remain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Despite the fact that blogs are not even close to being a reliable source, none of them even use the term "Wesleycan." I still think this is a term the creator of the article, whose username is Wesleycan, created and is trying to promote. Furthermore, the article talks more about the person of John Wesley and his intentions and only a little about what it means to be a "Wesleycan." I don't believe that this subject is significant enough and suggest deletion or at least a merging of some of the content into Wesley's page.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
• Delete --an unwelcome
  WP:NEOlogism. Wesleyanism had its roots in Anglicanism, but the fact that some modern Anglicans may be moving in that direction is no reason to coin a hybrid word for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - the concept described by this
  WP:GNG rather than WP:NEO as a reason. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Firstly, there is no evidence anywhere that anyone actually uses this word, which seems to have been made up by the author of the article, who is apparently trying to use Wikipedia to publicise it. Secondly, the article is not written from a neutral point of view, but attempts to promote an opinion, including telling us what is "important".
  talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete does not have coverage in RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2013 (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.