Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptism by desire


 * 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 of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Baptism by desire
Merge into Baptism? Just doesn't seem broad enough a topic to stand on its own. -- Syrthiss 21:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards keep with the revisions, especially after looking at how large Baptism is.--Syrthiss 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per nom. Changing vote to Keep, I've changed my mind. This is apparently a major theological point, article has more than enough material to stand on its own now. -- Saikiri 21:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: a valid stub on an important topic, with wider implications than you might think. Smerdis of Tlön 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom in its present form., Perhaps Smerdis of Tlön would care to flesh out the article with some verifiable encyclopædic facts as to these "wider implications", rather than just asserting their existence. I've cleaned up the more obvious typos.  Tonywalton  | Talk 23:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article, with references to related parts of the Catechism to try to put it in context, and contrasted it with a position held by many Protestants. Not sure what the Eastern Orthodox churches say about this.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep following expansion by Smerdis of Tlön. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or rename(?) to baptismus flaminis, as it is a major idea in Catholicism. Also note the google hit count of over 10 thousand. Smmurphy 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Google test is irrelevant since almost no one seems to want to delete the info, since it's obviously notable in an obscure way. This topic is already covered in Baptism; why make it a separate article? Redirect; no merge necessary. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as expanded &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't including the google link to assert the relevance of mentioning the topic, but rather to let you take a look at the amount of depth and histiry that articles like this one. I appreciate Tony's criticism, and I hope someone (maybe me?) will have the time tomorrow to flesh out the article. Smmurphy 06:22, 30 November 2005 (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.