The result was redirect to Nazarene. Consensus is that this is not a fit subject for an article and that any useable content should be merged to the appropriate articles. The target of the redirect is one of several that have been proposed, it can be changed as deemed appropriate by editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The article is, basically, about a term used in different circumstances by different groups to, apparently, describe groups which are not apparently related. So far as I can see, there are no encyclopedic articles which clearly relate to the topic directly. In fact, two of the apparent sources used to establish notability seem to be dictionary definitions of the term, and such dictionary definitions are generally not counted as sufficient to establish notability. I do note that there are books listed on Google as well as at least one new religious movement which use the term prominently, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe either the books or NRMs are themselves notable. I have every reason to believe that the article, as it exists, will never reach encyclopedic quality, given the various ways in which the term has been used and the lack of immediately obvious and/or noted connections between them. I believe the best alternative might be to turn the page to a redirect or a dab page, and that, potentially, it might also be best locked to some degree to prevent recreation of similarly problematic articles in the future. John Carter ( talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Nazarene. Consensus is that this is not a fit subject for an article and that any useable content should be merged to the appropriate articles. The target of the redirect is one of several that have been proposed, it can be changed as deemed appropriate by editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The article is, basically, about a term used in different circumstances by different groups to, apparently, describe groups which are not apparently related. So far as I can see, there are no encyclopedic articles which clearly relate to the topic directly. In fact, two of the apparent sources used to establish notability seem to be dictionary definitions of the term, and such dictionary definitions are generally not counted as sufficient to establish notability. I do note that there are books listed on Google as well as at least one new religious movement which use the term prominently, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe either the books or NRMs are themselves notable. I have every reason to believe that the article, as it exists, will never reach encyclopedic quality, given the various ways in which the term has been used and the lack of immediately obvious and/or noted connections between them. I believe the best alternative might be to turn the page to a redirect or a dab page, and that, potentially, it might also be best locked to some degree to prevent recreation of similarly problematic articles in the future. John Carter ( talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply