Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation

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. There is clearly no consensus to delete the article. There is no clear consensus between keeping this as a separate article and redirecting, but that is matter for the normal editing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special creation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is really about instances of the words "special" and "creation" being found next to each other. There is no consistant meaning for this expression since it is used in various ways, as the article explains. Borock (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect/disambiguate to Creationism. The number of Google Book sources that yield "Special Creation" capitalised demonstrates that it is a term of art, not merely "the words 'special' and 'creation' being found next to each other". It is ambiguous (see for example this source) whether this concept can be distinguishable from Creationism more generally. However, at the very least, this is a prominent synonym for that topic. If the Catholic concept is thought to be prominent (and a target can be found), turning this article into a dab-page may be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran into this with Vacuum level as this is a bit of a contraction for an (energy) level (of an electron) in a vacuum but it often appears as an unrelated phrase (" keep the vacuum level as you clean the floor"). So, some citations may be about the special creation you made for dinner, the term does come up in the intended context enough to be mentioned somewhere AFAIK. IF nothing else, maybe a redirect to another creationism page or a dab page. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the article copy to Wiktionary; a perfect place for a pair of definitions coming custom-made with citations to idiomatic usage. That doesn't automatically mean we shouldn't keep it here as well, but it probably should be merged into Creationism. bd2412 T 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to the creationism page. It's a term that doesn't make any "special" distinction between it and creationism as it is. Auntie E. 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: I feel that I'm much too green to offer content related input (until such time as I have had a chance to get comfortable with the criteria for judging same), however, I have an observation that I think is applicable here. Please forgive if this is 'hair-splitting'. It presents that there is a possible issue with the title of the AfD. There is a distinct difference between the pages Special Creation and Special creation. The page that is up for Deletion is Special creation, not Special Creation. One would think that this distinction would not need to be drawn (but that might be my ignorance shining brightly). If Special creation does get deleted, then the redirect for Special Creation will need to be dealt with as a by-product, no.?. TodWulff (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's due to the wikipedia titling convention -- subsequent words are never capitalised unless the topic is a proper noun. However many sources capitalise terms of art, meaning that capitalised/uncapitalised can be useful in getting some idea as to whether they are used as such, or as their simple English meaning. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin will know to deal with redirects to the deleted/retargeted article. No worries. bd2412 T 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware there were two articles. Borock (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't -- Special Creation redirects to Special creation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Keep This phrase is distinguished from creationism and has particular meaning.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Fill says, this has a special meaning, or rather several very closely related meanings, each of them very important. The article needs to be broadened to include the full range of meanings and views. Possibly it should later be split, with a separate article for special creation of humanity. There are literally thousands of possible sources. Just considering books, of the 2200 in the GBooks search cited right at the top about half will be relevant and usable. WorldCat lists 60 books with the specific phrase in the actual title[1]. It is most definitely not about the mere occurrence of the two words next to each other. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 3 October 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.