Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One people under one God

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 merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Sandstein 12:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

One people under one God

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

One people under one God (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)

Neologism used by one person, without any sustained media coverage except mentions in news articles about some of his rallies, and several opinion pieces created after the rallies without any future consequences. This may merit a sentence in the Donald Trump article, but nothing more. wumbolo ^^^ 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or if appropriate merge and redirect. Apologies in advance for the length, there's a lot of sources here to analyze. Analysis of sources is as of this revision: [1]. #1 is the Huffington Post, which is a relatively partisan source. Especially in the area of politics itself, partisan sources aren't generally reliable. #2 is a brief mention in passing. #3 is just a Bible passage, only very tangentially related. #4 covers it a bit, in context of analysis of Trump's speech in general, but I'm not sure of the reliability of the reference and it's regardless a pretty brief blurb. #5 only mentions in passing. #6 is the American Humanist Association, not particularly reliable and of course will have a clear position on the matter. #7 looks like an internal periodical for a specific organization, unknown reliability and certainly doing nothing for notability. #8 is NPR, certainly highly reliable, but is about the role of religion in his campaign in general and only mentions the specific phrase in passing. #9 is a blog, nothing more to be said there. #10 is RedState, another partisan source, and again those should be treated extremely carefully in terms of reliability on political topics. #11 is again about Trump's campaign and religion in general, with only a passing mention of the particular phrase. #12 is a partisan source ("liberal bias" right in their "About Us" page), so same caveat as before. #13 is the Inquisitr, which an RSN discussion found to be an unreliable source: [2]. #14 is again a brief mention in passing. #15 is a brief mention in passing and only of a passingly similar phrase, not even the one in question. #16 is just a quotation of the statement as part of a larger quote and isn't even about that portion of his speech. #17 is, again, just quoting it a part of a larger quote, and the article isn't at all addressing that portion of it. This is reference bombing of every single thing that can be found that mentions the thing in passing, but no number of unreliable sources and passing mentions add up to notability. This subject isn't notable for a standalone article, and at most should possibly be briefly mentioned in a parent or sibling article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge I do think there's quite a bit of info here that is great on Trump's use of this phrase. However, the "After 2016 elections" section appears to be original research, as the sources cited in that section don't refer to the article topic at all. This means that there's not been WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this topic and that this topic does not deserve its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. Let's merge this into Donald Trump and the article on his presidential campaign. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge Per user:Seraphimblade and user:FenixFeather The article does have legitimate sources and coverage, but I think it fits better with DT. Rosario (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - opposed to merging but if it must be merged, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is a better target. Not sure about the source analysis above; why is American Humanist Assn being impeached for instance? As a source of the religious significance of the phrase I think they are fine. What would be better, Christianity Today? Same problem right? It is significant because it is significant, not because of or despite who said so. And merging a full article to "a sentence" seems arbitraily dismissive. I think it's been shown that it had lasting significance during the campaign even with physical manifestations (the Trump Unity Bridge float/trailer). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Bri, with the American Humanist Association, they just don't have what's defined for a reliable source: A high reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Nor would I really expect them to; publishing isn't their primary focus. But that does preclude their use as a particularly reliable source. They're also a position-based organization, and while I personally tend to agree with their positions, that does require treating them with caution as a source. When I checked RSN, it looks like Christianity Today was considered rather sketchy and somewhat partisan, so I doubt that would qualify as very reliable either. But ultimately, we need substantial numbers of sources that fully meet reliability, and cover the subject in reasonable depth, not just quote or briefly mention it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete way to POV based article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Too POV" is a classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions. POV can be fixed per alternatives to deletion. Deletion is supposed to be based on notability or outright BLP, copyvio or other major policy violation. Bri.public (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. There's only enough coverage to justify an article if you discuss all sorts of "one nation" constructions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Lacks sustained coverage. The merge target should have a hatnote distinguishing this topic from Pledge of Allegiance (United States) § Addition of "under God". — Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per Seraphimblade's analysis of sources (though I'm not sure I understand their problem with HuffPost, which is generally reliable—see WP:RSP). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: the content is suitable for stand-alone article and is properly referenced. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2018 (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.