Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline Preterism


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pauline Preterism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A description "pauline preterism" which isn't in use anywhere reliable, sourced to 2 self-published books (Liwanag and Hollett) and other primary or unreliable sources. Probably better not to merge or redirect this neologism / WP:OR either. Fram (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete 8 search results, none passing WP:GNG, no sourcing makes this an essay, TBH... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Immediate citations does not call for speedy deletion since suitable sources are needed and it's not a final draft. Please see WP:NOTPERFECT Transformium (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is neologism not recognized as a title for Wikipedia article? Sourcing the topic's content will be hard to find since neologisms are not always indexed by google nor published on mainstream media, but it doesn't mean it's non-existing.Transformium (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everything that exists can have a Wikipedia article, we only should have articles on well-established subjects, things which have received attention from reliable, independent sources (books from reputable publishers, newspapers, scientific journals, ...). Please see WP:GNG for more on this. Fram (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's consider time in finding suitable sources. Instead of removing content from an article, consider: Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact. See WP:PRESERVE Transformium (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The basic issue, the concept of "Pauline Preterism" itself, lacks sources. "Correcting inaccuracies" = "Deleting this". WP:PRESERVE doesn't call for the keeping of such neologisms with poor sources which don't even mention the subject as such. Fram (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good at this here counting thing, but it seems to me like you just voted KEEP twice, Transformium... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, forgot to remove it after copying my reply with "suitable sources" above.Transformium (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we move it to draft space? I've been following these Preterism variants for years and would like to make a valid entry. If possible, let it be an article for WP:DRAFTIFY. Transformium (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete non-mainstream, so hard to find sources. The ones given are short/not reliable. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete citations are self published, except (Hays 1915), which doesn't seem to reference the topic. Does not appear to be a widely acknowledged thing.--Jahaza (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just added two sources from JSTOR to emphasize its Pauline Eschatology origin and its older name as Paul's eschatological fulfillment view. Wikipedia doesn't have these entries. Check also the bibliography for the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) proponents. This led to the beginnings of Pauline Preterism. Transformium (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, the added source also doesn't seem to reference Pauline preterism? It makes it look more like original research, not less.--Jahaza (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So how will I call it "Paul and Fulfilled Prophecies" (aka Pauline Preterism)? Transformium (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2022 (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.