Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irenaean 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim meh ! 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irenaean theodicy[edit]

On grounds of being a neologism and Wikipuffery. Basically it seems to be about the theodicy of John Hicks, based on the theodicic views of Irenaeus.

Its a bit like having an article about Disraeliism, covering the political views of Michael Nazir-Ali, and these being based on a few views set forth in a comment made by Benjamin Disraeli; his political opinions are notable, but connecting them to Disraeli to such an extent is just vanity, and an inaccurate implied portrayal of Disraeli. Beeton Pineapple covering 'my views about the best way to cook pineapple chunks, based on Mrs Beeton's recipe for upside down cake', would be similarly inappropriate.

You might as well have articles about Bristolean Coca-Cola pricing, which discuss prices of Pepsi in Manchester; its not a notably distinct 'thing', and the title is quite misleading.Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not appear to be a neologism but of the two references given for the article the second one which perhaps might be reliable is dead. If the subject matter is POV or not about the title and cannot be corrected or referenced then I would lean towards deletion. However this is not my area of expertise and I will wait until others have weighed in. Drawn Some (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator does not represent accurately what this theodicy is (and the poor writing of the article doesn't help)--it is not 'like' those things mentioned by nom. at all. And it is certainly not puffery (doesn't even read like it), and it is far from a neologism--it is a pretty generally accepted term. It is named by Hick 'for' Irenaeus, and it is explained in some measure here. And here. And here. And here. And here. Do I have to go on? Apparently--what neither nom. nor article told us--this is one of the most significant theological developments of recent times, and it is (as shown above) well covered in highly reliable sources. Nominator, what a quick search through Google Books can't do... Drmies (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The theory of Gröbner bases was developed by Bruno Buchberger, who named them after his advisor Wolfgang Gröbner. This is a notable concept, worthy of an article by itself, and as such should of course be treated under the name by which it is commonly known, which happens to be Gröbner basis. Same here. The concept is notable and generally referred to by the name "Irenaean theodicy". The fact that it was explicitly formulated and named by someone else than Saint Irenaeus is not an argument for deletion. --Lambiam 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the John Hick article, section "problem of evil", he said ...[such and such].. this type of theodicy is also known as greater good defence [emphasis added]. So that would seem to suggest that his thing would be under greater good defence, not Irenaean Theodicy (which the John Hick article doesn't even mention). Anthony on Stilts (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anthony, the leaps you make on those stilts, I can't follow. Just accept it: Irenaean Theodicy is a well-accepted term, coined in its present meaning by John Hick, and accepted, references, discussed, and mentioned in very reliable sources. What the Hick article says is really not so relevant in comparison to the half dozen or so books I referenced, which clearly and unequivocably establish the notability of the term. Wikipedia articles: great, but not acceptable as WP:RS; books: sometimes heavy, and perfectly acceptable. I urge you to take a minute or two and look through the book references I gave above, and then perhaps you'll draw what I think is the appropriate conclusion: the withdrawal of this nomination. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the idea of theodicy is certainly notable - sermons are given on the topic every Sunday. The questions is whether this would be better merged into another place, as it might not be enough to stand on its own. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Irenaean theodicy is not a neologism. Is notable. Nominator has pretty much mischaracterized the article. (Article needs help though).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term and meaning of "Irenaean theodicy" is quite a famous, common and well-received term used so frequently that it should be retained. It is by no means a "neologism" but an "old convention" to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.160.150 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.