Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antilapsarianism


 * 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. W.marsh 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Antilapsarianism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Stub article about a theological concept; only reference provided is "A Dictionary of Difficult Words." I find about 50 unique google hits when searching for the word -wikipedia, and at a glance very few of the results seem to be actual discussion invoking the topic. Stub was created in January 2006 and has not been substantially improved. I prodded this article on May 2, 2007 and prod was removed on May 6 with comment that the article is under construction and this is a "major theological concept," which may be true but is not established by the article. I then placed notability, references, and orphan templates; article has not been improved since then (and is still orphaned). Propaniac 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, dictdef. Tempshill 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I can find supported by sources is the first sentence, or a rough approximation thereof, namely than an antilapsarian is one who does not believe in the doctrine of The Fall of Man. The rest of the article, that attempts to characterize this as a creation/evolution argument, is unsupported by any sources that I can find, and original research.  The article is also incorrect in what it says about Protestantism.  That appears to be a conflation of antilapsarianism with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.  The first sentence is the only thing that can apparently, from what the sources say, be said abut antilapsarians.  Just redirect it to The Fall of Man. Uncle G 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Uncle G. The purpose of this page seems to be to make a tendentious claim that evolution necessarily implies human perfectibility and denies original sin.  While a valuable article on antilapsarianism might be written in the future, this is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough in theological academic circles. No longer orphaned or unreferenced.  An argument for deletion is NOT how rapidly the article advances by prods. Decoratrix 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A dictionary definition (the reference you added) is a trivial source and does not establish notability. I included the history, including prods, to be upfront about both my own interaction with the article and the fact that someone previously did not believe this article to be deleted, despite the apparent low interest in improving it. Propaniac 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect just a dic-def and so uneeded, but is a possible search term. Eluchil404 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.