Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellfire preaching

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire preaching

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to establish notability (WP:GNG). Failed to find articles supporting notability as an independent topic. Existing sources are all trivial mentions or not reliable. See also WP:NEO. Allanlw 11:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 11:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is not a neologism as it is especially associated with 18th century people and events such as Jonathan Edwards (theologian) and the Great Awakening. The worst case would be merger with another similar page such as fire and brimstone. For a book on the topic, see The Rhetoric of the Revival: The Language of the Great Awakening Preachers. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also discussed in The Catholic Historical ReviewVol. 74, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 383-402, a mention in the New York Times and a ton of other less reliable sources. It exists as a concept and the concept is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. reasonable start on an article on a widely used term for the genre. Probably thousands of available sources DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is used but I am not sure we have any SIGCOV of it so this has a problem with DICTDEF. The only definition I found is in a self-published book here. Is there anything better that offers a discussion of this concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) PS. If none such sources are presented, I'd suggest redirecting and merging to Christian views on Hell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this really isn't much of a topic on it's own, and should be merged with other relevant topics if necessary. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant and notable. Numerous use of the concept in the mainstream media.[1][2]. SunDawn (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to make this pass WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is quite a notable rhetorical genre with an important history.--Pharos (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - this was a neologism in 1848. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2021 (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.