Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God: Conservator

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 no consensus. Mango juice^talk 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God: Conservator

Google search for "God the Conservator" comes up only with this page on Wikipedia. This article is written from a specific point of view and most definitely consists of original research. As such it breaks current policy and should be deleted. Vizjim 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "God the Conservator" - it is definitely not an original research but an established theological doctrine. If we have even God and gender, we can have also this one.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence that it is an established term? Searches on JSTOR and google return nothing. Vizjim 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it in my books about RC theology. I do not know the exact term in English because I studied it in Czech and in German, but this could be solved by moving the article, if the term Conservator is wrong. BTW the article cites its sources, so I thing that it is enough to prove that the idea is well established.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cited mention the term. Vizjim 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they describe the concept. I am not sure about the term in English - in Czech it is Udržovatel and I found many www references related not only to the Christian God, but also to Vishnu and other deities. In English I found this, but it does not use the title as well. - What I wish to say is that the title of the article may be wrong, but the concept is established and IMHO encyclopedic. And a bad title of the article is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone researches the issue and provides a sourced, useable title that's not a seeming neologism, it sounds as thought this article belongs only on the Czech Wiki. Vizjim 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not use too much irony against fellow Wikipedians. Wrong title is really not a deletion reason. - Now I found it - the proper English term is Sustainer and not Conservator. Try to google "god creator sustainer" - I've got 250,000+ hits. So I change my vote to "keep and move to God the Sustainer".--Ioannes Pragensis 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No irony intended, I do assure you: there are terms which exist in one language and do not have equivalents in another. A Google search for the exact phrase "God the Sustainer" brings up 182 unique hits [1], divided about 50/50 between Islamic and Christian uses of the phrase, so this looks like a workable article name. Nomination withdrawn on condition of article move. Now, how do I close this debate off? Vizjim 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for an admin unless you are one. :-) - The obvious problem of the article is that it is concentrated only on Catholic theology, but the concept of God Sustainer is present also in other Christian denominations, in Islam and other monotheistic religions, and even in Hinduism (Vishnu). It should be broadened. Greetings--Ioannes Pragensis 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR violation, few or no wikilinks. --Aaron 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR (see Google) and the nomination has already been withdrawn by Vizjim.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn nominations don't matter once the discussion stops being unanimous. And it is WP:OR; the specific Bible quotes are legit, but the opening paragraphs and the cherrypicking of specific Bible passages constitutes original research. (It also makes it an NPOV violation. --Aaron 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen discussions which ended for withdrawal without being unanimous. But it does not matter much. The important thing is that this is not OR - you can find the notion about God the Sustainer in many books and articles (e.g. http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2389.htm). And it is not a NPOV violation, because the article just reproduces the Roman Catholic POV and correctly says it. Of course there are other viewpoints which can (and should) be there, but this is not a reason for deletion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a description of the Holy Spirit to me. The Spirit is often described as 'Comforter' or 'Sanctifier'. Certainly not OR, I think, but not something that demands a new article either. I think merge is best. -- Bpmullins 20:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Islam does not believe in Trinity (and Holy Spirit), but still does believe in God the Sustainer. Therefore I think that the article should be kept and broadened, not restricted to the Christianinty only.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The Bible quotes aren't OR, but the selection and melding of them into this theory is. Cynical 11:16, 19 October 2006 (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.