Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology

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) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 21:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomistic sacramental theology[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Since the article's creation (2007) (see this version after the creator finished adding things), this article has been but an unsourced, very poorly written essay (WP:NOTESSAY) by its creator, user A E Francis, who also signed within the article itself with their initials ("AEF"). The user has shown on the talk page that they considered their walls of unsourced, unencyclopedic texts as fitting for an encyclopedia and did not plan on reworking this article.

I have in late 2022 removed all those unsourced parts, and have added some information. Since 9 September 2022‎, the article seems stable (despite A E Francis seemingly attempting to pursue what look likes the world's slowest edit war between this date and now).

Therefore, since the article is so small and only relies on primary sources, I propose it be either deleted, or merged to Thomas Aquinas#Theology then blank-and-redirected. Veverve (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Christianity. Veverve (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable, and nothing in it's current form violates policy, and forms a viable stub. The content removed was written and apparently largely unchanged from the early days of Wikipedia before most of these policies existed, so accusing the author of bad faith seems unwarranted. The empty sections should be deleted to make it clear this is a stub. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do accuse the author of trying, nowadays with those policies in place, to keep what is essentially their own essay on Wikipedia. They have once again restored their useless content today. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would appear to be a content dispute, or a behavior issue. I don't think AFD is the proper forum to resolve the conflict. Perhaps moving the essay to "userspace" while any content issues are addressed would be more constructive. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really believe that this article is so small (when A E Francis' terrible walls of blog posts are removed) and poorly sourced that it warrants at least a merge. Veverve (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused, to be honest. It seems clear to me that the topic is a subject of scholarly thought, see 1 and 2 and 3. So I don't really understand the basis of the AfD. JMWt (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect that the subject (though of no interest whatever to me) is notable. I wish those currently engaged in edit warring would instead devote some of their fervour to finding and citing sources. Maproom (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thomas Aquinas is known as one of the greatest theologians and biblical commentators of the 13th century. The article's topic is definitely notable, otherwise there would not be any monographs or collections of essays on the topic. See, for instance, [1].ThegaBolt (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- The core of the article is a long quotation from this important medieval theologian's work. This is properly cited. I therefore do not see a problem with the article in its present state. On the other hand, the bio-article on Aquinas contains a series of sections on aspects of his theology, to which the central section at the core of this article might conveniently be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2023 (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.