Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodicy


 * 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   speedy keep because the nomination was apparently on behalf of a user who says he did not want the article deleted. WP:SK ground 1 therefore applies. Non-admin closure.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Theodicy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm listing this here on behalf of User:Ht686rg90 to settle a dispute. I don't know what Ht's exact motivation for wanting to delete the article are, and he gives none -, ,.

(As 'people' might 'happen' to edit the article or other related article nearly or entirely out of existence), this AFD was created when this was the version of the Theodicy article and this was the version of the Problem of Evil article


 * Keep. Theodicy is the justification of God(s), including justification of philandering by deities, and justification of the motivation of deities behind legal codes. The Problem of Evil, on the other hand is just about the existence of evil, and isn't restricted to theistic situations; the secular problem of evil , for example, and the evolution of evil  , being other aspects of it. Clearly the two topics (Theodicy vs. The Problem of Evil) overlap, but neither overlaps the other completely, and they are not the same. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have never argued for the deletion of the article so I suggest that this strange AfD should be closed.Ht686rg90 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Emphatic speedy keep under WP:SK ground 2: The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. I submit that it could not possibly be appropriate to make "Theodicy" a redlink.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep--why are perfectly valid articles nominated by editors on the idiotic hunch of someone else? There is no way in heaven or hell that an eyncyclopedia like ours could not have this article. Vandal warning for the instigator, and trout slap for the executor (this is NOT the place to have editing disputes--if user keeps redirecting, get them blocked or banned or dunked in cold water). Drmies (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep over 0.5 million Google hits and I see at least three that are reliable. What's up theology guys? Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

References:
 * 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.