Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soteriological Traditionalism


 * 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. The article's subject is found to be WP:OR and not notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Soteriological Traditionalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating because the entire article looks like a synthesis to me. Running a google search on the title pulls up very few results for the term, none of which look like they'd prove to be reliable sources. There are mentions of Soteriology and traditionalism in published sources. The selection of sources the creators have provided, additionally, seems odd. There are a couple of links to some rather dense articles published by a journal from the "Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry" but mostly they seem to rely on some rather smaller sites. That, combined with the overall structure of the article raises questions of possible promotion for me. Hopefully an AFD will at least bring more eyes to bear on this article. Dolescum (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The article links to the southern baptist convention's official news portal (the sbc is the largest Protestant denomination in america). The formal theological viewpoint was consolodated in 2012 so searching google would not be the best way to determine it's legitimacy. All of the sources confirm the viewpoint's uniqueness to other views. The article even goes to great lengths to show it's distinctions with citations. Not only is soteriological traditionalism affrimed by the largest denomination in the world  (SBC's journal), but it is also expounded upon in a scholarly sense in the other citations. This view is cleary taught in tens of thousands of southern Baptist churches, there is no reason an encyclopedic overview of the view should not be available on Wikipedia.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Additional citations from the Southern Baptists Conventions official news portal sbc today have been added to further substantiate the legitimacy of the wiki articles content.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional citations from other southern baptists resources have been provided including content describing multiple prestigious southern baptist proponents of soteriological traditionalism, along with sources.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The term soteriological traditionalism means "the traditonal view of salvation" this term is derived from the "Traditonal understanding of the southern baptist view of soteriology." Perhaps this is why google struggles to find the phrase very often, it is a literary simplification of a longer phrase. This does not however invalidate that soteriological traditionalism is an appropriate term for the view, There is no other view that uses this title, and when the title is googled it shows results to the sbc view on Soteriology. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A section titled "notable endorsements and objections" has been added to the article giving clear detail on the formal nature of this theological view. Citations are included. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the synthesis charge. Wikipedia says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I would like to see specifics regarding this charge. It comes across as baseless. The article presents an informational review of the view and cites several majors sources to prove legitimacy. It is my opinion that the nominating user "Dolscum" has failed to qualify his charge properly.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to User "Dolsum's" comment "the article raises questions of possible promotion for me" I would like to point out that the article remains neutral providing citations from major sites that support Traditionalism such as connect316.net/ and major sites that support opposing views like Calvinism such as http://www.monergism.com/. It also contains a section that presents notable endorsements AND objections (that includes supporting citations), which can be expanded upon. Overall the article give ONLY an informational overview of the topic and does not make any claims of superiority, rather it clearly lines out distinctions and positions with no promotional commentary. I would like for the User Dolsum to indicate which part of the article is "promotional" because I would be glad to revise it accordingly. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC) A subsection was added in the "Traditional Statement" section covering the "Calvinist Response" to Soteriological Traditionalism. This furthers the neutrality of the article. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Userify -- The list of doctrines included appears to me to be contrived to fit a flower POINSETIA, no doubt to contrast with the Calvinist TULIP. This is still a very recent article with one (new to WP) main author.  I am far from sure what to suggest, but since this is an agglomeration of doctrines, with no very clear statement of who adheres to them all, I suspect the answer is to ask the author to produce an article on each of the 10 or so doctrines and link them to this article.  I presume this to be one of several possible statements of an Arminian soteriological position.  It may be possible to provide an article worth uploading, but it needs a lot more work yet.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Peterkingiron, thank you for the input. I have added two in depth references in the POINSETTA sub-section. Although I am a new user, I have taught seminary classes for three years and been a Bible teacher in various churches for 8 years. I am well qualified to write on this topic. Thanks again. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - purely original research. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article presents an informational review of the view and cites several majors sources to prove legitimacy. This means the article does not qualify as " purely original research" as Bearian implied with no examples to support his assertion. The article also includes sources that specifically use the term "Soteriological Traditionalism." Nathankyle2188 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This non-denominational seminary in Florida has a news publication on Soteriological Traditionalism in their post titled "Calvinism, Arminianism, or Traditionalism?" It mentions the term "soteriological tradionalism" twice. http://www.covenantbiblecollegeirc.com/#!news-and-events/c24vq Furthermore, if you were to use a less technical term such a "A Traditional view of Baptist Soteriology" it would be similar to calling Calvinism "A Calvinist view of Protestant Soteriology". The reason the term "Soteriological Traditionalism" is used it for literary simplification (in the same way we use the term "Calvinism" to address it's view of soteriology), and because the term "traditionalism," when left alone, can apply to various topics. This form of traditionalism is specifically related to the topic of soteriology so the common phrase that people use to refer to it is "Soteriological Traditionalism."Nathankyle2188 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (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.