Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from love


 * 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Argument from love

 * — (View AfD)

Fails on grounds of original research and neutral point of view. I see no evidence of anything called the "Argument from love" which merits an encyclopaedia entry. All I see is one person indulging in some philosophical musing and trying to justify a particular stance on the (super)natural world. Where is the evidence that the "Argument from love" is a concept that has occurred in the literature, or is a phrase widely used as a justification for belief in a god? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. This looks more like blog-material than an encyclopaedia entry. Snalwibma 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as I understand Snalwibma's further comment below his nomination for deletion is withdrawn. It is common ground that this article needs further work and I hope that a number of the users who have contributed will work on it. I'll certainly do my bit when I get back from the US later this month. Together we can continue to make Wikipedia stronger. NBeale 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Tevildo 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless referenced and rewritten. --EthicsGradient 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a really pervasive thread in the whole of Christian Philosophy - the books listed are good sources and it would be straightforward although tedious to list a dozen more. I'll try to put up more specific refs but I have work to do today, big family events at weekend and business trip Monday-Thurs, and only found out today about this delete proposal. NBeale 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I am the primary author of the article. I also note that NPOV is not considered a particularly good reason for deleting, cos such articles can be re-written if that's the problem NBeale 12:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I am less familiar with this argument than the argument from beauty. I am less persuaded by it. As in the case of Argument from beauty, the article is too scanty and needs to be fleshed out. The history is not described adequately. I am unsure of its importance in philosophy and its venerability. If it can be demonstrated to have an extensive history like the argument from beauty, it could be kept. I wonder if might not be smarter to Merge this with the argument from beauty or similar arguments? However, that might not be the best option. I am unsure. Perhaps the article should be drastically fleshed out first so that it can be more properly judged, and its relevance would be better understood from that perspective? If it is removed, I would favor the editors working on it in draft form and then trying again. How many other arguments are there? There must be many. Can a better way to organize them be imagined?--Filll 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. An unsourced, bulleted list is not an encyclopedia entry and fails other wikipedia policies as well. Merge any verifiable content if possible.--Andrew c 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this might be a Merge therefore. However I would note that this argument now has has more refs than the Cosmological argument which as been well-establised since 2001. It was a stub originally and the way to deal with a new-ish "unsourced" is to source, not delete the article. NBeale 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am familiar with this argument and think it deserves to be kept, though further development in terms of sourcing would be good. 193.63.62.252 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an independent argument though significant editing is required - Mclaugb 12:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see enough hits in a Google Book search here to convince me that this is now an argument in theology with its own name. None of the full book results in that search are about this argument from love, however, they only use if as part of "argument from love of ____" with varying blanks.  There are also at least two relevant google scholar results here.  GRBerry 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - on that basis I would be happy to retract my nomination for deletion - but the article must demonstrate that it is an "argument with its own name". It needs considerable rewriting to turn it into an explanation and discussion of a notable argument used by others. At present it still consists largely of blog-style musing, and appears to be trying to persuade the reader of the existence of a god. As it stands it is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Unless this is changed within a reasonable time I will renominate for deletion. Snalwibma 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I had mistaken this for the argument from beauty, which survived the AfD, so I also added this one the Template:God Arguments, but I have since removed it. I have no idea, if this is a notable argument or not, and I didn't remove it because I don't think it is notable, I simply don't know... I think it should be added to the template when this RfD has been decided. On the other hand if anybody might want to put this back on it, to get more traffic to this debate for example, it is fine with me. Anyway.... I will make a relevant comment or rather ask a question here, the argument from beauty has changed drastically since the AfD, but this one has not. Was all attention on the other one, or is this one simply less sourceable?  --Merzul 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge I would rather tend towards keeping this one. Unless we have things that are blatantly self-promotions, such as an argument that is simply the title of somebody's essay, etc. I'm hardly offended at having too many arguments for or against the existence of God. This is not a less significant question than the fictional characters in the World of Warcraft ;) The question is of course, and this is mainly to supporters of this argument. NBeale for example, you have worked hard at asserting the notability of this argument, but you also have to ask yourself: are you willing to maintain so many independent articles at a high quality? Thus merging love and beauty into "The arguments from love and beauty" is probably just simpler to maintain! --Merzul 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Since my "Delete unless referenced and rewritten", the article has been referenced. However, the text gives the impression that the Argument has a more-or-less logical, formal structure. While there are plenty connections between the perception of love and the notion that God exists in literature, what the article needs in its current form is a reference to where it is spelled out in a more or less formal manner. --EthicsGradient 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per comments by GR Berry and Mclaugb above Laura H S 09:38, 9 January 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.