Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditional election


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Conditional election

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's entirely unreferenced content seems to be more like an OR religious discourse than an article about an established concept. The related article, Unconditional election, seems similarly flawed. seems to indicate it is a minor ongoing issue of debate amongst certain American Protestant churches, but it is without any real scholarly sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: That the article is unreferenced/problematic means that it needs to be tagged and improved, not that it warrants deletion. WP:BEFORE applies here, since a trivial search on GoogleBooks, etc, easily shows that it is an longstanding and important concept in Arminianism (vs Calvinism), and there are sufficient contextual examples on wikipedia. Given its relation to Unconditional Election, the two might be better merged as Election (theology), but that'd require expert attention. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  03:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While the concept might be historically important re Arminianism, the terminology itself seems modern - it seems to be a modern term used by American Churches. I have doubts that it is important enough to have a stand alone article. But merging the two as suggested could work and perhaps get it away from a reliance on religious tracts produced by minor American Christian educational institutions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The earliest source on GBooks mentioning conditional election is dated 1681 from England and contains a Bill from 1638 presented to and responded to by Charles I. This was the year before the Bishops' Wars, and the complaint was against David Lindsay (bishop of Edinburgh). Note that no explanation of "conditional election" was deemed necessary to be given. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  02:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I stand corrected on the early usage. But Election should be capitalized, I think, like Elect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hydronium: exactly. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - certainly an established concept. Like a number of theological articles, it suffers from an OR Scripture section, but that of course is no reason to delete the article. GBooks gives thousands of hits for the phrase, the first page being almost entirely significant mentions. StAnselm (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. This is a non-notable Fringe theory that never references which 17th-century religious author (or crackpot) came up with the idea. Then the entire article spends time looking for the possibly non-existent scriptural evidence for the theory, rather than what human writers and expert scholars have commented on it. The article on Arminianism itself lacks coverage of its historical context and evolution. The article on unconditional election is also in poor shape, but at least attributes the concept to Augustine of Hippo and briefly mentions Augustine's influence on the Protestant Reformation. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to create Election (theology) as suggested by User:Hydronium Hydroxide. And tag for improvement.  This is an historically and theologically significant concept, which merits a good article.  It is NOT  a Fringe theory, it is, or was, a major theological concept that has ceased to be a prominent part of contemporary theological discourse. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Election (theology) should redirect to Election (Christianity). Unconditional election has it own notability as one of the Five points of Calvinism. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is a theological concept about becoming one of the Elect (which also redirects to Election (Christianity)) would it not be better for both the conditional and unconditional election articles be merged into Election (Christianity))? Would not what is now an obscure subject be better understood that way? That, and rewriting the 17th-century-speak of the believer: stuff like ""Unconditional election" asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounded reasonable, until I clicked on Election (Christianity). Article is worse than this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2016 (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.