Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evanescent grace


 * 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 delete. —  Scott  •  talk  10:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Evanescent grace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources seem to exist that suggest this term is in use, or that the concept is a notable one. This article is based entirely to blogs, and the only sources I can find are self-published. StAnselm (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete By the looks of things, there aren't any scholarly published discussions of Calvinism that mention this as a concept - it appears to exist only as an Arminian criticism of Calvinism, rather than a point of doctrine in the Calvinist faith. I've no objection to including it as such, but per StAnselm 's nomination, there seems to be little available beyond blogs and self-published critiques of Calvinism available for the purposes of sourcing. If someone can point me to a noted theologian who's written about the topic, then I'm prepared to change my position. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delayed delete Calvin does use the term in the cited source (Institues 3.2.11, the whole section is about this concept), and I'm sure there are academic sources that discuss the concept under less particular language. I'd be fine eventually merging it into an appropriate article (Election, Predestination, or Assurance), but I think we should give the author of this article notice and a time line in which to improve this. I think that the doctrine exists, and that the article as it is written (with perhaps a bit of a WP:NPOV bent and lacking WP:RS) is basically accurate, but I'm not sure that the doctrine is WP:N enough to merit it's own coverage. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly why we have seven days for a deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A Google book search turned up nothing theological. The Institutes quote does not actually use the term, it just says that the grace being described may prove "evanescent." It doesn't even look like the same word is used in the scholarly Battles translation of the Institutes. --JFH (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (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.