Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel of success


 * 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   merge to Prosperity theology. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of success

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This stub article is a clear POV-fork of prosperity theology, and is little more than a WP:coatrack for commentry by a single theologian on another named individual. Contrary to the (unreferenced) claim in the first paragraph, the phrase 'gospel of success' is hardly used in the media (Google news appears not to find it at all for example ). There is no evidence provided to demonstrate that the concept, as defined in the article (as opposed to a synonym for prosperity theology and the like) has any notability whatsoever, and accordingly the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Attleboro (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. "About 18,700 results" on educational websites alone for "gospel of success" -- at minimum should redirect. Attleboro (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And can you actually cite any of those sources for a definition of the term that matches the one in the article? Notability is an attribute of an article subject, rather than of a phrase used as a title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is no neologism. Please feel free to adjust the definition, but be sure to note or account for the general negative tone of its uses. Attleboro (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will 'note' that you have failed to provide any evidence for a 'general negative tone'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In every instance cited, the term "gospel of success" is used with at least regret if not outright condemnation. I think the burden's upon you to show that the gospel of success really is "Christian religious doctrine" as the prosperity theology is presented. Attleboro (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * you will need to provide actually reliably published sources that explicitly say that. Wikipedia editor cannot "interpret" the tone of primary source usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the Refs. cited, but you must stop removing them so others can read them, too. Attleboro (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * they are merely using the phrase, not discussing it as a specific topic and each source is using the phrase in a different manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * redirect WP:POVFORK zero indication that the use of the phrase has any specific connection with the meaning put forth by the editor.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to prosperity theology. The phrase is used often enough to justify it as a search term (GNews archives has 7 pages of results, GBooks has quite a few as well) but I find no evidence that "gospel of success" is generally understood to mean something distinct from what our existing prosperity theology article is about, or that there is some general understanding that "gospel of success" is always (or even usually) understood to denote a "heresy". WP:DICT is often misused in AfD arguments, but this is an appropriate instance to note its instruction that, "in Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." In other words, we don't usually need two articles to cover two phrases that refer to the same concept. As it currently exists, this is just a WP:COATRACK for a couple of negative opinions on the topic. Maybe those opinions can be incorporated into the existing discussion in the "theological criticism" section of that article, but not as currently written.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to prosperity theology as above. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree if "as above" means to a more general criticism section, rather than "the 'theological criticism' section of that article, ... as currently written." Attleboro (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? I would have thought that someone talking about "heresy" would pretty clearly be a "theological criticism".  --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Readers vary as to who is qualified to determine heresy. A nonbeliever may not require a notable theologian and accept evidence of mere inconsistency with Christian first principles. A true believer may require more, such as professing faith in those principles. The general and, it seems, negative uses of "gospel of success" seem to come from journalists or social commentary, by theologians or not. Attleboro (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * while readers may vary, we and our article content have guidelines. If the people making quotes are not qualified to make determinations about "heresy" then we should not be using them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * merge with Prosperity theology, but I'm not sure of what should be the title. The present phrase is the one I recognize.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mergeas noted by DGG. That's reasonable. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG. If this is not precisely the same as Prosperity theology, placing the content in that article will provide a useful means of indicatfing how they differ.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 22 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.