Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocalypticism

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 (NAC) --Unionhawk ^Talk 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypticism

On grounds of being a neologism and artificial synthesis.

I think it should be turned into a redirect to End time. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search returns over 133,000 hits many of which are books on the subject. Is the nominator sure that he spelled the search term correctly? http://www.google.com/search?q=apocalypticism Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As it stands (and, as near as I can tell, as it always has), this article consists of original research with a dollop of point of view. (I mean, "Still there are no guarantees that unknown forces won't intervene at some point, or that unknown natural cycles won't reassert themselves"? Really!) And now there's a humongous "See also" section that includes fiction and films and everything anyone could think of, all of which is presented in other places, such as Apocalyptic fiction, List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and so forth. And all this from an article that started out as a simple redirect to Apocalypse! I'm waffling on the proper redirect target for this: at the moment End time seems the best match for the content of the article, because it includes links that will lead readers most anywhere this does. The main problem is that there's too much unnecessary overlap between Apocalypse, End time, and several other articles, and this is the odd one out, since it includes nothing that isn't present, in better (and sourced) form, elsewhere and is vitiated by the pervasive OR and POV problems referred to above. With no content worth merging, redirection seems the best option. Deor (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be merged into Millenarianism? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In fact I say WP:SNOW. This is clearly not a neologism, but a very widely known and used term. No we should not redirect to "end times." Furthermore this is the anchor article for the category of the same name. See Bart Urhman's excellent book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet as well as Kossy's interesting book Kooks. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is clearly notable whatever the quality of the current content. John Carter (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly Notable. End Time is what apocalypticism expects to happen, it is not the sum of apocalypticism. So too, Millenarianism is a sort of apocalypticism, not the thing in its entiretly. Now, I won't say that there shouldn't be a merge in some of the related articles mentioned above - I'm sure that's the case. But, instead of an AfD for a notable term, how about some concrete merge proposals. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:40, 10 May 2009 (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.