Wreckovation: There is already a Wictionary item on the same topic, so there is no need to move the article there.  The Wikipedia article has the following two problems: Notability not proven ( WP:N ) - the article does not cite any direct source about wreckovation.  See also WP:NOTDICTIONARY , point  3. The content of the article is not coherent and has no clear connection with its theme.  Therefore I suspect that Wikipedia:No original research and possibly neutrality ( WP:NPOV ) are violated.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 16:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Architecture ,  and Christianity .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A quick before yielded primarily blog results, with few RSs using the term.  Except in blogs or mirrors of Wikipedia, definitions are not provided.  I think that a good article on "Post-Vatican II architecture" or "Modern church architecture" could be made using academic resources with splitting from Architecture of cathedrals and great churches and Church architecture , with "Wreckovation" a redirect to a section on criticism of such changes.  However, "wreckovation" is a specific enough term that it is unsuitable as a redirect to either of those articles.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 18:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge/redirect, or keep, but not delete The article is terrible, so starting over isn't a bad idea.  But I found plenty of journal articles using the term, and I'm quite surprised that Google's book search isn't finding hits (it's certainly producing tons of obviously bad matches).  The reality in English literature on the subject is that the stripping of decorative detail in the reordering of churches (primarily Catholic, but the Anglicans got hit with it too to a lesser degree) after Vat II was extremely controversial in the day.  If you think the attack is rarely used, well, in the day, it was used all the time by opponents of the changes being made.  Probably a stand-alone article is not the right solution in the end, but the name needs to point to somewhere in WP discussing the reordering and the massive negative reaction against it.  Keep : I just now added reliable sources, including the New York Times, demonstrating notability.  Michaelmalak ( talk ) 04:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability needs a significant coverage, not only the usage of the term in NYT, WP:SIGCOV .  -- Jan Spousta ( talk ) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added more cites.  Here is a summary of all the references: Books Non-fiction books Origins of Catholic Words: A Discursive Dictionary Environment and Art in Catholic Worship Fictional book White Smoke, Black Fire Secular periodical New York Times Religious periodicals La Stampa Crisis Magazine The Priest AD 2000 Catholic Key (official diocesan newspaper) Today's Catholic (official diocesan newspaper) Liturgical Arts Journal College student research Delft University of Technology ...plus one misc.  (USCCB), one blog, and three primary sources (Church documents) Many of the citations added are from within the past six months, and in many I included a quote that specifically mentions "wreckovation".  Michaelmalak ( talk ) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for that.  But it looks like you proved that the word is used in the described sense (which is something I have no doubts about) and that there are many cases where it may be used by some people.  This would be more than enough for Wictionary.  But the Wikipedia notability of a slang word needs to show that somebody wrote significantly about the word itself, not only about its meaning.  For example there is no doubt that some people use the term "simoleon" and that there is a good deal of literature about one dollar banknotes, but that is not enough to have an article about simoleon here.  -- Jan Spousta ( talk ) 21:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. The article recounts the history.  It does not merely define the word and demonstrate that it is used.  2. Two references are about the phenomenon, not just the word: The one from Crisis Magazine and the one from The Priest.  3. Since my last response, I have added a reference to an entire book on the phenomenon, though it uses the word "wreck" rather than "wreckovation".  There are many such books that could be referenced.  Michaelmalak ( talk ) 22:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. The article recounts the history of the liturgical reform (albeit in a very partial and unsufficient way) but it does not explain the history of the term "wreckovation" which is what the article should be about.  There is no discussion about the encyclopedical notability of the reform of the liturgical space itself: it is clearly notable, but it cannot be explained under such a derogatory title - the article about it should be as neutral as other articles in Wikipedia ( WP:NPOV  ) 2. I do not see Crisis Magazine mentioned in the article and the reference from The Priest is only an anonymous essay about boys in the church which mentions a wreckovation only in one sentence, not as its main theme.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 08:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just now: Added some of the timeline of the term usage Added a parameter to the Crisis Magazine cite to clearly identify it It is common for even racial slurs to be the titles of Wikipedia articles.  But if you mean the article body, I did just now remove a usage of the term that cast it into a positive light.  Michaelmalak ( talk ) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also just now rewrote that problematic introductory paragraph from the Background section.  Michaelmalak ( talk ) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment @ Jan Spousta : , your approach to this discussion is puzzling.  I don't agree with how you insist such an article be written, but what concerns me more is that you give the impression of being unaware of any controversy in the first place, though any student of Catholic liturgical reform in the USA and its architectural fallout in the latter decades of the 20th century cannot justifiably be unaware of this.  Those of us who were interested in it and around at the time couldn't miss it.  You are coming close to saying that the criticisms behind the word can be dismissed, which is untrue: those criticisms are amply documented.  That is why I think it makes more sense to merge this to some place discussing the changes and the reaction to them.  Mangoe ( talk ) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mangoe : The discussion about contemporary Catholic liturgical space has not only taken place in the US, but also here in Europe.  Many books have been published about it, and it would be good to have an article about it on the English Wikipedia.  But the article needs to be neutrally written under a neutral title.  Wreckovation is slang, not a term for serious discussion.  Slang words can be subjects of Wikipedia articles as words - who uses them and why - but they cannot serve as a starting point for describing what they refer to.  See WP:NPOV .  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fine,and I said above that I think its mention in an article on the larger issue make more sense.  But the mere fact that it is pejorative isn't reason to avoid mention of the slur.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course, but the slur should be proven notable ( WP:N ) - not everything is worthy to be included here.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Nom Change of ! vote to Weak keep if title is changed.  See rationale in "Note" below.  Opening lead states, "Wreckovation is a portmanteau disparagement term used since at least 2002...".  Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  The first source I randomly picked, a 2008 article titled Before and After: St. Mark's in Peoria, Illinois , did not even give passing mention to the offered "portmanteau".  The word just did not take off in society.  Wikipedia is written for the general audience and not just a specialty group, or a "student of Catholic liturgical reform in the USA".  The article might have merit but the title does not.  A few people can use a word but that does not mean the word became common or mandate an article be created.  The word, as used, only describes the "wrecking" of traditional church style and renovating to some non-traditional style.  It does not encompass the re-renovation or reversal "back" ("reform of the reform") to the original style.  Over seventeen years after the creation of the new word, it still lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and WP:independent sources to advance notability.   -- Otr500 ( talk ) 03:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ctrl-F on the References section shows quotes of references that use the word -- and I just now added some more quotes to the already-existing references.  The reversal of renovation, and the costliness of it, gives justification to leveraging the word "wreck".  It is true the word "wreckovation" has not gained footing outside of Catholic publications (other than perhaps the cited college thesis by Bas Nijenhuis), but neither have Catholic-specific words such as "St. Teresa of Avila", which has its own Wikipedia article.  Michaelmalak ( talk ) 05:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not underestimate St. Teresa of Avila, Michaelmalak.  See Teresa of Ávila#Portrayals .  And do not overestimate "wreckovation" which has probably no single relevant Catholic publication under a title containing the word.  That's a big difference from Teresa.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but possibly rename to a less controversial name like "Post-Vatican II liturgical design" with a section on controversial renovations.  Patapsco913 ( talk ) 02:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ryan, Bill (September 20, 2000).  "St. Pat's Protestors Make Demand" .  Sentinel Tribune .  pp. 1 , 8 – via Newspapers.com .  Gregory, Marketta (January 20, 2005).  "Protestors reflect on efforts and are glad" .  Democrat and Chronicle .  p. 15 – via Newspapers.com .  The problem is that this article is too one-sided ( WP:NPOV ) and also lacks even the basic information needed to understand the changes in Catholic liturgical space caused by the Second Vatican Council.  It makes no mention of the debates and documents of the Council or of subsequent papal instructions such as Inter Oecumenici.  There is an article in the German Wikipedia called de:Liturgiereform (Reform of the liturgy) which is quite good, explains these things in context, and would be great to translate into English.  But I don't think it would help us to keep this POV text.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect , depending on whether people feel the existing content is worth salvaging or that it would be easier to start from scratch on a previous commenter's suggestion of a "Post-Vatican II liturgical design article".  The current article seems like WP:CRITS to me.  — Moriwen ( talk ) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm seeing pretty good coverage of this term as a term , including an entry on pages 522-523 of CUA-published Origins of Catholic Words .  Aside from coverage as a term , there is actually quite a good bit of study about, as one researcher from Lund University calls it , The purist transformation of the church interior following Vatican II .  These include articles in Quadrant and [ U.S. Catholic ] .  As the deletion policy notes, when editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page .  And, editing can address this; the core subject of the article (i.e. the transformation of Catholic Church interiors following the Second Vatican Council) is notable, and a change to the page title (coupled with some tweaks to the lead) can make the article well-reflect this.  As such, I think that WP:NOTDICT problems can be extinguished by relatively small textual tweaks converting this from WP:WORDASSUBJECT to an article about the subject of liturgical spaces, and I think that subject of the design of liturgical spaces (and related controversies) post-Vatican II passes the WP:GNG .  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no consensus yet.  A reminder, if you are advocating a Redirect or Merge, you need to name a proposed target article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The way I'm reading the process, if no consensus is reached after 7 days, the article is not deleted -- not that it is "relisted" (which Ctrl-F turns up 0 matches in Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Articles for deletion ) Michaelmalak ( talk ) 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to me that there is (almost) consensus that the article cannot remain in this form.  But there is no consensus whether to delete, merge or rename it.  I think it would be best to delete it because the standard of the current text (NPOV, quality of sources, explanation of context...) is so far below the cited German Wikipedia article that it would be better to take inspiration from the Germans and start all over again.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 09:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change of ! vote above with title change.  See "Note" below: No title change= ! vote to delete.  Note : There are  options to relist .  It can even be relisted more than once.  I am struggling with a agreeable solution.  There are issues.  The entire concept, actual subject, is notable.  NPOV issues and the article is "not coherent and has no clear connection with its theme" is valid.  The renovations actually caused somewhat of a schism .  The article title, a blend of words, did not actually gain enough notability to become a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  It is not a job description of Wikipedia to advance word acceptability.  The title-to-subject disconnect, along with the apparent article presentation, is problematic as validly mentioned above.  The Nom referred to "rarely used derogatory slang term" and as such the title is not notable.  The content needs a total rewrite but that is not an AFD concern.  -- Otr500 ( talk ) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, and for the reasons below.  First off, we have long been suspicious of neologisms , for good reasons; we are a neutral source and especially are getting involved in domgatic disputes .  There are few in-depth, neutral sources about the subject.  Much of the information is in-universe discussion, akin to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a neologism it's not particularly "neo".  And seriously— angels on pins?  There's nothing abstruse about the issue: many older churches, especially Roman Catholic buildings, had their interior decoration and architectural detail stripped in the name of updating the space for post-Vat-II liturgy (or its Protestant equivalent).  It was widely decried at the time and in the years that followed, and eventually some changes were reversed where possible.  It was attacked both as artistic vandalism and as a repudiation of Catholic values and principles.  It may be of little interest to people who are irreligious or indifferent to artistry, it's hardly neutral to privilege the opinions of such people.  I agree that using the pejorative word as the name of the article is the wrong way to handle this.  We do need to mention it somewhere, though, because it was widely used by opponents of the changes, and every time I come back to look at this it keeps coming back to "we don't want WP to admit of the controversy at all."  Mangoe ( talk ) 17:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and move to Post-Vatican II liturgical design per Red-tailed hawk.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the phrase "Post-Vatican II liturgical design" found only 2 pages in Google.  It is probably even much less notable than "wreckovation" (17 ths. pages found).  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 09:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A topic doesn't need to be in verbatim quotes for the overall subject to be notable, though I'd prefer "Post-Vatican II liturgical space design" (so as to avoid confusion with the, say, Mass of Paul VI ).  If you'd like some articles about the actual subject, I'd suggest you read "The Council as Shibboleth: The Rhetoric of Authenticity and Liturgical Space after Vatican II" , "Archi-liturgical culture wars" , and Architecture in Communion: Implementing the Second Vatican Council Through Liturgy and Architecture .  There's quite a good number of sources out there that talk about the thing (liturgical space design post-V II) in a substantial way, and that is what makes this pass the WP:GNG .  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Red-tailed hawk : I do not object to the notability of something like "liturgical space after Vatican II", but "liturgical space" (space distribution of people and objects in the church) and "liturgical design" (the aesthetics of the church and its furniture) are two different things and the later has not much to do with the council.  And I do object to the neutrality and quality of the current article.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 10:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW, the "pure", simple Modernist and later International Style churches started to emerge already in 1930s (for instance St. Wenceslas Church (Vršovice) , 1929-1930), years before the Council.  And this architecture then influenced even the rebuilding of older churches.  The Council accelerated the changes (because of its demands on the liturgical space) but it was not the primary source of the "aggiornamento"/"wreckovation" movement in the church design - the source was the modern aesthetics as formulated by Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and others.  Jan Spousta ( talk ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Second_Vatican_Council#Controversies .  The "Related renovation controversies" section is emblematic for the article.  IgelRM ( talk ) 11:08, 5 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus