Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triclavianism (2nd nomination)

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 — Caknuck 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triclavianism

Since the last AfD in April, nothing in the article has changed. I have nothing to say about the actual topic of how many nails were used in Christ's crucifixion, I merely feel that this particular term isn't really a notable term used to describe three nails being used instead of four. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Holy Nails doesn't use the term, and this single Anglican author and creator of the word from the 19th century seems to be the only reliable source anyone has found so far that mentions this specific term. There may be a word that describes the belief that Jesus was crucified with three nails, but so far, it appears this term definently did not catch on as the word, at least not in any reliable source. At best, maybe some of this material should be merged with the word's creator, George Stanley Faber, but for now, I really don't understand why this should be a separate article, if an article at all. Nextly, the "Keep" arguments in the last AfD really didn't seem to me to actually argue for an article on this specific term, User:DGG's and User:Andrel's criticisms would only apply I think if the entire Holy Nails topic was being deleted itself, (And thus deleting the "iconological and the theological aspects" of the topic) and every other "Keep" argument seemed to be either an appeal to WP:INTERESTING or an attempt to ignore Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Homestarmy 04:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if at all possible. If it is not possible, then Merge with one of the others. This sort of whimsical stuff is what makes WP fun. I am sorry I have not put more effort into digging up more material for this article since the last time. But I really think it sounds very interesting.--Filll 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned with the fact that this article is 80% text quoted verbatim from another source, and not really an article at all. --Haemo 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it needs some work. There are a lot of articles here that need work. Put some effort into fixing it, just don't delete it willy-nilly. This is not like an article on a 4th runner up for Miss Shoe Shine in Bupkis, Iowa. --Filll 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like i'm trying to nominate this for speedy deletion, AfD debates take time for good reason, and only in maybe the most obvious cases are articles deleted "willy-nilly", though I doubt most administrators go on random deletion sprees of backwater theology articles. Homestarmy 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that a Pope specifically chose to condemn the concept makes it notable. Also Google book search finds several citations discussing the tree-nail-crucification idea:

Short History of the Italian Waldenses who Have Inhabited the Valleys of the Cottian Alps from the ancient times to the prsent by Sofia Van Matre Bompiani (page 38)
A Theological Dictionary, Containing Definitions of All Religious Terms (43MB download) by Charles Buck (page 130) (43MB download)
Catholic Encyclopedia has a very interesting discussion on the three nails and sybology associated with JC on pgaes 421 and 649
The Apocryphal and legendary life of Christ by Donehoo, James De Quincey cites Luke on page 350, "Most painters represent Christ as fastened to the cross with three nails, one for each hand, and one for the two feet."

I am not claiming that the above sources should necessarily be used in expanding the article, but if a 10 minute search throws up so many sources, surely the topic is notable. Abecedare 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the Coats of Arms of Drahovce, Saint Saviour, Jersey and St. Clement Parish, Ottawa, as well as Passion_fruit#Names. Article clearly needs rewriting, but it has great potential. Abecedare 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of those sources actually use the term "Triclavianism" to describe this concept? Once again, i'm not trying to argue that the concept of Christ being crucified by three nails is not notable, but that this particular term identifying it is not. If the term isn't used in those sources, then all of those sources would be excellent for the Nail (relic) article, which is not up for AfD, and is not so long that it would need a whole separate article on three nails instead of four. Homestarmy 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Waldenses book uses the term on Page 38 (I have corrected the link in my previous post); while the others only talk about the idea of three-nail-crucification. I think the concept deserves an article and "Triclavianism" is just a convenient article title for it - if editors think another name is more appropriate, that is fine with me.

One problem with merging the material with Nail (relic) is that this idea is, and almost always has been a minority view, and of more interest as a cultural phenomenon than in historical study of how many nails were "really" used. As such discussing it at length at Nail (relic) will perhaps violate WP:UNDUE, while an individual article can properly provide the correct context. To give an analogy, "Flat Earth" theories deserve no more than half-a-sentence in the main Earth article, but rightly have a nicely written Flat Earth article of their own. Similarly "Triclavianism" perhaps needs no more than a short section in Nail (relic), but can be expanded out with discussion of not only the "theological" aspects but also details about depictions in art, association with Passion fruit etc in an article of their own. Of course this assumes that someone with requisite knowledge and interest will put in the work - but isn't that true for all stubby articles which are left undeleted to serve as honey-pots ? Abecedare 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that this AfD is given the full time to run, and that the article can be fixed (by those appropriately interested/knowledgeable/motivated) by providing more sources and having a lower proportion of quotation. However, I'm not sure that it's worth keeping unless this can be done. SamBC 05:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no justification given to delete this. It's an obscure term, so what, it's what an encyclopedia is supposed to cover. There's no suggestion anything in the article isn't true, there's no copywrite violation, I don't see the problem. Nick mallory 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly, i don't see the humor. Even if one is not a Christian, it's an important archeological question. There are really two questions, of course: what would actually have been done at the time, and the theological and sectarian significance. The article quoted is about one particular take on the theology. I do not think the author cited was being ironic in general, except for his reference to the Pope--but based on the article about him, his views were considered very peculiar even at the time.

Last time, I said "keep-- Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism." I now see I was wrong. They are indeed important, and were WP not interested in them it would be an example of presentism, but this article under discussion is hopeless as a serious discussion. The first step in improving it would be to remove the entire quotation which makes up 90% of the article. I'm not very impressed by what the old Catholic encyclopedia says about the subject either, there's been a lot of discoveries and a lot of work since then--for one thing, it is clear that in the one known actual skeletal example, two nails were used for the feet, one on either side of the stem of the cross. Redirect to crucifixion--not that it's a very good article itself, but it's better than this, and the word is already present there.DGG (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Nail (relic). The anecdote about the miraculous confirmation of the four nail hypothesis is too interesting to lose. The fact that a pope apparently infallibly decreed that four nails was an article of faith makes this noteworthy. The article on the nails as relics suggests that more than thirty nails were used, though. I'd believe it; Roman soldiers were apparently incompetent. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the specific term "Triclavianism" really a notable and accepted word that should be used to identify the concept that the pope has condemned? Homestarmy 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, following the debate, I'm prepared to say keep, as the article is about the concept, not the term (or should be); if there's another, more common term for the same thing, maybe it should be renamed. SamBC 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But outside of Faber's invention of the word, and the one other source cited above, (Whose link I cannot identify) do any believers of the subject in question actually identify their own belief on this subject as "Triclavianism", or really any specific term at all? I note that the belief that four nails were used in Christ's crucifixion does not seem to have its own separate article, and since the Catholic church apparently believes it, theoretically, an article on "Quadclavianism" or whatever deserves to exist more than this one, since theoretically, far more people would believe it and it would therefore be much more notable. Homestarmy 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the belief is documented and notable. GlassFET 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons I gave the last time around. I agree the article can be improved, and have ideas on how to do so, but because of demands of career and family haven't had time to do so. Andrel 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a religious belief noted and documented. Harlowraman 18:04, 7 August 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.