Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Nomination was withdrawn after cleanup of the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epistemics of Divine Reality

Epistemics of Divine Reality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Essay, original research Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 07:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent article on one of the greatest questions of human religion: Can God be known? If yes, then how, by recourse to natural theology or to divine revelation? If God doesn't reveal Himself, can man know God? But most importantly, can man establish the existence of God with reference to either reason or experience alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsmarb (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Don't let this discourage you from editing Rdsmarb (there are a shed load of religion/philosophy articles where your contributions with verifiable, reliable sources would be welcomed), but you have inadvertantly touched on why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the publisher of original thought. WilliamH (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has lots of sources.
  • Keep or Merge to Existence of God. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has been updated and gives information on the field of knowledge-theory. It relates to philosophy of religion and is on a topic that is of chief concern to philosophers of religion and philosophical theologians alike.117.98.4.214 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am updating my opinion to add the Keep option since the direct sourcing has been improved. The issue now seems to be whether this is a separate topic from the article Existence of God. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Parts look like they could be WP:OR but not all of it, so the topic is a keep. SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit. I removed the part that seems to be an advertisement for the views of R. Domenic Savio Marbaniang, professor of Philosophy of Religions at CITS, Itarsi & associate evangelist with Jesus Saves Jesus Heals Ministries, India. I can not identify the university, and none of the material seems to be published. Possibly the improved article will now stand. Otherwise, it's the publication of his OR. DGG (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I bow to the knowledge of people who know the subject matter better than me and have withdrawn the nom, especially now that the lengthy OR has been removed. I would still suggest that this needs to be merged with Existence of God. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The sourcing issue has not been addressed, since a significant number of them are from this website, R. Domenic S. Marbaniang is Rdsmarb. From what I can construe, this article is seemingly entirely his own self-citing essayist commentary, and should be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit or Merge: The subject is a branch of epistemology of religion, branch of the philosophy of religion. It may be merged under Philosophy of Religion; however, philosophy of religion is a wider subject and can't afford much space for this topic in an encyclopedia. The topic, however, is an important theme in apologetics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and theology. I have removed much of the article-matter and given only an introductory statement.Rdsmarb (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced original research.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


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.