Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanentize the eschaton


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church Talk 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Immanentize the eschaton
Unsourced: Pjacobi 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Immanentize+the+eschaton%22++site%3Avatican.org ) => nothing found
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=eschaton+site%newadvent.org&btnG=Search (Catholic Encyclopaedia) => nothing found


 * Weak Keep the phrase is mentioned on Eric Voegelin as well as several web sites chowells 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, that would be an alleged third meaning. I'm mostly targetting the alleged first meaning, as I've found no sources for a connection to Roman Catholicism. Anyway, if the result will be keep, I'll take your comment as volunteering for cleanup. --Pjacobi 19:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand. You might want to make your reasons for nominating it clear in the AfD in the first place. I will certainly not be cleaning up the article if its kept. chowells 19:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Per category sorting and intro sentence, the article states that it is a concept in Roman Catholicism. My attempts to verify this failed (see above). The article further states, it is a concept in conservative propaganda. I doubt this, but I can't judge it, as this is a very broad topic. Anyway, if that would be the only meaning, the article is grossly inadequate. Now you additional state, it is a concept in Voegelin's gnosticism. Uuhh. But that certainly isn't in the article and therefore wouldn't be a reason to keep. --Pjacobi 20:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My impression was that you were suggesting that the entire phrase was a hoax or a neologism. My vote remains the same however. chowells 20:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added a number of external links to the article, please consult them. They document Conservative use, evangelical Christian use, Discordian use, and Chaoist use. They also describe the phrase peing popularized in the 1950s by William F. Buckley after its use by Voegelin, and in that conncetion discuss (rtaher vaguely) a Catholic use. They also document its use in describing Gnostic views, but apparently only by non-Gnostics. This may derive from the Roman Catholic use. The use in formal Catholic theology is the only one not well documentd from these links. DES (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The article may need to be re-categorized, re-stubbed, and/or cleaned up, but none of those is a good reason to delete. DES (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources are now longer than the article. the wub  "?!"  20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If we agree on removing the connection to Roman Catholicism, I'd agree to speedily keep. In the long list of sources giben now, only some ".'.Frater Equilibrist.'." http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/ite.html claims the connection to catholicism. Now looking through the sources, it's seems to be mostly a Robert Anton Wilson concept. --Pjacobi 20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable concept in US conservative politics. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Worthy Keep for the connection to The Illuminatus! Trilogy alone, but obviously is a notable term beyond that book. 23skidoo 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but where is the illuminatus link? SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Note: I started the article, so I'm biased. It is a lot better now than it was though!) --Carl 01:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with much improvement needed. glocks out 23:04, 19 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.