Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian existential apologetics

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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion of the new version of the article. Sandstein 17:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian existential apologetics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sure this is very interesting, but it's original analysis of primary sources, ie. an essay unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pattern of revision history of this article suggestive of meat/sockpuppetry. asnac (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh so it does. Very interesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a really interesting case. I'm not sure what the norms are for a serious philosophy or theology piece, but this one actually looks at a drive-by glance like good work, albeit maybe with a bit of POV that needs to be sliced and diced from the end. The edit history is indeed intriguing. No opinion as to whether this constitutes prohibited original research or a nice job of encyclopedic coverage of a serious topic. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...the fact that it's prohibited original research is exactly why it's being nominated for deletion and why it is not, in fact, "good work." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...IN THE OPINION OF THE NOMINATOR. That's what we're looking at here, eh? Carrite (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment written on December 24 that denies that this is "good work" is out of date. IMO this is clearly good writing. While my !vote remains delete, and maybe at this point in time the article deserves some WP:IAR weight for being good writing, wouldn't this be a good article for a magazine? Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. This looks like a classic case of original synthesis. St Anselm (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on ["christian existential apologetics" -wiki] indicates that there is no such thing, at least currently, as the alleged topic. I don't see that the article or the article's talk page provide additional references that verify that this topic exists. If WP:Identifiability were a policy, this article would fail it. See also WP:Fringe, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calgorian and I put this article online. What changes does it need to conform to Wikipedia policy?
Comment That is, Calgorian and HannahCoulter.
Comment User:HannahCoulter —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The topic of "Christian existential apologetics" needs to be determined to exist by its coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the article needs to cite those sources rather than engaging in original analysis of primary sources, ie. those writers whom you believe to be existential apologists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That might be able to be done by eliminating large parts of the article and including only the secondary sources. I will check with Calgorian. User:HannahCoulter 3:30, 30 December 2001 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.129.48 (talk)
Changes Will make changes during the coming week: delete most of the article and replace with secondary sources. User:HannahCoulter 15:20, 30 December, 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Changes Changes made just now: deleted two sections near the end and recast a section near the end. Changes to make (tomorrow or early next week): eliminate the first two long sections on Proponents and Opponents and replace with a short description from a secondary source.--HannahCoulter (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, Roscelese. I now see what the Wikipedia policy is and how the article did not fit it. I think I can make it fit, and would like several more days to do so.--HannahCoulter (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed About 95% of the article has been eliminated, including original analyses of primary sources. Thanks for your comments on the article.--HannahCoulter (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article in its revised state seems to have shaken the OR/POV feel that the earlier version was showing. Appears to be an encyclopedic topic, glancing at the reading list, although this is not my area of specialty or special concern and others are probably in a better position to make this determination. Still, to me, this looks like a keeper in its current form. Carrite (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We now have a reliable source for the phrase, but it's from a book published in 2011. This sounds like it might be a neologism - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone else has adopted either the phrase or the concept. The whole Williams quote is "Apologetics in Protestant and Catholic apologetics has been too evidential. It should be supplemented with existential apologetics." That sounds like Williams is trying to drum up support for the idea. I don't see why Wikipedia should support that. St Anselm (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the topic is notable. --Lambiam 14:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge , either into Christian existentialism or Christian apologetics. It does not appear that this is yet a distinct and notable topic, though the content appears usable. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (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.