Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnibenevolence

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omnibenevolence

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is not referenced, and mostly someone's opinion. Not encyclopedic. Cuñado - Talk 08:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this is an important and widely discussed concept in philosophy and theology. Not a neologism (contrary to what the article currently says). Article is (now) reasonably well-written and cites references. dbtfztalk 08:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- well done with the re-write, dbtfz. Respectfully suggest withdraw AfD. It's a legitimate entity. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't take credit for the rewrite--I haven't edited the article myself. dbtfztalk 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, assumed you edited the 1st paragraph and see also. My bad. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A concept that deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not paper. Mostlyharmless 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a neologism created to be parallel with the words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to make it easier to explain the problem of evil, which I can explain very easily. Q: Why is there evil in the world if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good? A: There are no good people. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • ... which proves either that there is no God, or that your "if" clause is false, since He created people (per your Book) and could have created them good, knowing in advance that the creation of non-good people would result in vast amounts of avoidable misery. Barno 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - who cares if it's paper or not? This is OR. ---J.Smith 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A concept in philosophy and theology, etc. See Cal Poly's Phil 342 (Philosophy of Religion) notes on Omnibenevolence and the Divine Command Theory (Prof. Lynch). —ERcheck @ 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Omnibenevolence is one of the top 20 or 30 concepts discussed in virtually every Philosophy 101 class. Hardly a neologism, it is a term/concept used and widely discussed by professional philosophers and theologians, as the recently added bibliography items illustrate. dbtfztalk 23:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good little referenced article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I learnt something new. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The articles on arguments about god need something to link to for a concept of benevolence, and benevolence is some unrelated crap about phrenology. Infinity0 talk 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think people are missing the point. It doesn't matter if Omnibenevolence is a major theological idea, or if it is taught in a 101 class. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and think whether or not Omnibenevolence has material to make it an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. This can always be moved and linked to Wiktionary. Currently the only encyclopedic information is one single sentence:
The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity has often been attacked based on the problem of evil and the problem of hell.
The rest is badly written and actually says that Psalms 18:30 is contradicted by Hebrews.8:6-7. If that's not original research then I don't know what is. Cuñado - Talk 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this is an important topic in Christian theology, the idea can be very briefly summarized, and, in fact, is on God, theodicy, the problem of evil, etc. Besides which, while omnibenevolence traditionally is one of the attributes of God, in Christian theology, it generally has been considered only one of the perfections of God. In short, this content belongs elsewhere. Ig0774 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from the other comments above, the term is a neologism used by relatively few people. In the history of theology and the philosophy of religion, the term "benevolence" has been used without problem; "omnibenevolence" seems to have been coined simply in imitation of "omnipotence" and "omniscience". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Omnibenevolence, though a strange word I admit, has stronger meaning (for lack of a better word...implications? I'm tired) than benevolence alone. Omnibenevolence is a key premise in some formulations of the Ontological argument for the existence of God. In courses and some primary literature on religious philosophy, the word is used and addressed in and of itself. It deserves an article here, regardless of the quality of the current peice. Shaggorama 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    One of my main teaching and research areas is the philosophy of religion; the term "omnibenevolence" is of recent coinage (within the last decade or so), and until even more recently was mainly confined to undergraduate esays. Not one of the major writers on the ontological argument, for example, uses the term; they use "goodness", "benevolence", etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per ERcheck and Shaggorama. Barno 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The three sources in the article's Bibliography section are from the mid-1980s. If it weren't for that, I would change my vote to "weak delete per Mel Etitis". Barno 04:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    OK, "last couple of decades". Three citations (two from the same journal) out of literally thousands that don't use the term aren't exactly overwhelming, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 23 February 2006 (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.