Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrajectine

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 redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine

[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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG. I am not even sure the subject even exists substantially, that is it seem to me the adjective "Ultrajectine" has numerous vague meanings.
I have tried googling "Ultrajectine" and nothing substantial came up. Google scholar's 39 mentions range from vaguely refering to Old Catholicism to refering to the city of Utrecht; therefore, the expression is unclear and does not seem to refer to the "tradition [...] of the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands headquartered at Utrecht, Netherlands." If one is to discuss the beliefs of Old Catholics in general, Old Catholic Church#Beliefs already exists to do so.
As for reliable sources discussing the topic, I found:

The Other Catholics: Remaking America's Largest Religion (Columbia University Press, 2016) states (p. 88): "The new Catholic church created by Varlet, Steenoven, and the Utrecht community endured. It gave rise to a new adjective, 'ultrajectine.' Like ultramontane, the word 'ultrajectine' has geographical connotations. Derived from traiectum, Latin for 'ford,' it is the old Roman Empire name for Utrecht."

The author also gives a narrow definition of the word (p. 90): "And while today's US [Catholic] independents are far removed from Varlet's concerns, they recognize themselves in him. They call him their founder, name him a saint, and celebrate his feast day. As one American independent website puts it: 'Meet the Ultrajectines.' " (the source for this latter quote is: Raphael J. Adams, "Meet the Ultrajectines: A Brief Introduction to Old Catholic Thought," New Perspectives (Louisville, Ky.) 3, no. 1 (2002): 11–14.); it is quite strange the author does not cite a website despite claiming to rely on one, especially since the website of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America entry below has the same title by the same author).

The author also uses the adjective "ultrajectine" at other places throughout the book, but with unclear meanings sometimes. The author mentions an "ultrajectine theology" once (p. 110) without explaining what it means.

The 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions mentions (p. 1151, entry "Old Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. (Hough)"): Joseph Damien Hough being an "ultajectine" bishop. Melton also states: "The ultrajectine element predominated, and whorship and belief followed the ultrajectine tradition."

However, nowhere is the "ultrajectine" adjective defined in the book (you can check for yourself at the Internet Archive).

I have not been able to find other sources of such a high reliability using the word "Ultrajectine", the source using this adjective are in general very scarce.
The old version of the article (before I removed most of the information two weeks ago) had no reliable inline source, and was a patchwork of copy-pastes of unrelated public domain encyclopedia entries. None of the original two encyclopedia entries given as sources mention the word "Ultrajectine" or the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands; all those entries are about other well-defined subejct (WP:GNG). The Old Roman Catholic Church in North America website entry is not a RS and is not independent of the subject (again, GNG).
So, I propose the article be deleted or turned into a Wiktionary soft redirect. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like you've actually done the WP:BEFORE that so many miss. Combined with zero citations, I find it easy to say delete. CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Special:Diff/633110498 on the talk page from 2014. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citing of Adams 2002 by Julie Byrne is correct, by the way, and not strange at all. New Perspectives was (for about 7 issues, according to what the Wayback Machine makes available) that organization's print magazine, only some of the articles in which are put onto the WWW site, the rest being available via a subscription to the print edition. That's actually a proper citation for the magazine article, similar to {{cite magazine}}, a better one than was managed in the edit history of this article (Special:Diff/632104292 using {{cite web}}), I note, especially as whatever print copies there were have probably outlasted the WWW site. ☺ It's not wholly unexpected that an academic does a better job of citing than we do. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a small stub using the book references identified by the nominator, and tag for more. Deletion is a step too far in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tag for more: the article has been in a terrible state form more than 15 years, a banner is not going to change anything. Also, the scope of the article is still very vague when looking at sources. Veverve (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. This is a one-line stub, which is useless as an article. Since its implications are not explained, it is not even a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: the one line itself is unsourced, so a merge ould be very ill-advised. The meaning of "Ultrajectine" is vague, but Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands states one of the names for this denmination is "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" so a redirect could work. Veverve (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. There's too little to keep and even to merge but a redirect is justified. The sources and discussion above could improve the redirect target. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2022 (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.