Talk:Red-Letter Christian

RFV discussion: May 2021
The definition is at least somewhat wrong, this seems to in use for Christians, particularly evangelicals, who give special weight to the sayings of Jesus, as in a. But this is chiefly the name for a specific activist group with those views and it is difficult to find durable use as a common noun independent of people associated with that organisation. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, so basically all of those cites refer to people associated with the activist movement, except maybe the first one. I suppose it means that is how the term is used? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to be, yes. That was all I could find. (And the first quote is from a dissertation that is examining the activist movement). Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2021–April 2022
Not SOP and as a common noun not really covered by WT:NSE, but the most precise definition would be "a member of the Red-Letter Christians" which was the name of a specific activist group, so this is getting rather close to a proper noun. My instinct would be to delete this as marginal content for a dictionary. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a useful definition that could not be guessed. If we insist on "Red-Letter Christians" as the lemma, then fine, make it a plural entry, and use "singular of..." at the singular, but that approach always look backwards to me. Equinox ◑ 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "It is a useful definition that could not be guessed." That is a relatively common trait for common nouns denoting members of organisations with opaque names, some of which should be kept and some of which should not. Not a fan of the good old lemma switcheroo either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Would you want to delete too? Equinox ◑ 18:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but that one isn't really in the same ballpark. Red-Letter Christian is quite rare with use mostly restricted to a few years around 2010 when the movement was a bit of a thing. Seventh-day Adventist Church would presumably pass NSE, but a proper noun Red-Letter Christians wouldn't really stand a chance, would it? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Very late update: (i) defining X as "a member of the Xs" is obviously circular and stupid; (ii) having spoken to Lingo (and this was ages ago too!) apparently this religious group is quite a new modern one, whereas I had assumed it had got some history behind it. Still, RFV is king. Equinox ◑ 06:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per what Equinox said. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any good citations for this, but I hear this term fairly often on my local Christian talk radio station as a reference to people with a particular approach to Christianity without regard to any organization. For regular Bible readers, it’s not a very opaque term, so there’s no reason for them to think it rightly belongs to a particular group. I think it’s a legitimate common noun. Lereman (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No consensus, kept. - TheDaveRoss  13:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)