Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective salvation

Collective salvation

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

Non-notable neologism. The article is a massive collection of original research and synthesis. Many of the sources I could access don't even use the term, including the one used to source the statement: "Those that believe in collective salvation often claim Christianity and other religions as their base religion, but see all religions as one of many paths toward salvation." Sun Myung Moon and Barack Obama (!) do use the term, but with different meanings - and I'm pretty sure neither means the same as our article, though I could be wrong, given that the article is rather hazy on what collective salvation is actually supposed to be. I'm also pretty sure neither is a reliable secondary source. Huon (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination due to complete rewrite and addition of scholarly sources by Qrsdogg. Since hardly anyhing of the original article survived, we could have deleted it and started anew, but this outcome ist just as good. Huon (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have seen bad, but this is in a class by itself. Makes Wikipedia look bad, just being there. Any any effort spent here discussing the salvation of this article could go to better use fixing other things elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried to make it a bit more neutral and historical, but the current editors have a clear doctrinal bias against the topic and make all sorts of fallacious identifications between the topic and Christianity, Marxism, social justice, liberal theology, etc., none of which are necessarily connected to CS. They seem to confuse political perspectives with religious ones (citing Obama as an example of religious CS, e.g.), and they ignore the history of CS viewpoints in other religions or even in historical Christianity. And their use of sources is clearly OR -- they don't report what other people have said about CS but instead present their own examples of CS. I deleted several such citations--use the history button to locate those. If there is any kernel of an article here, it would need to be renamed "Collective salvation in contemporary Christianity", but even then it would need to be heavily monitored for POV problems. I started cleaning it up before the page was nominated for deletion, so some of the problems in the early sections have been consigned to the history page unless one of the editors reverts them. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

I have never seen such an shark pack attack on Wikipedia before. Multiple deletion request pages with the same arguement. Gutting of the original article changing the focus and deletion of references and notes. Thus making other points weak or null. In general, I have always thought Wikipedia editors to be generally supportive in helping others in making better articles. Using a phrase for the need for deletion that was under review - AS Noted under the section Sources and references above by Editor2020 above and pending change as documented above - the main requirement for deletion. Before the massive gutting the article was like this here.

It is painfully obvious that an agenda is being driven by a few editors. Dicredit, refocus and neutralize. I used to support and encourage people to use Wikipedia. I can see that it has been radicalized by the PC police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcrin001 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article as it stood demonstrated a clear doctrinal bias against the very topic of the article, contained loads of synthesis and had huge gaping holes in logic. And you accuse US of having a bias? The article you were writing was "Criticisms of modern Christian ideas of collective salvation." If that's what you want to write, then write it, but make sure the title of the article actually matches the content. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: It's clearer to me now that the article has been written in order to bash liberation theology. While there may be many sources out there that critique liberation theology, it seems odd that you'd write an encyclopedia article with the sole purpose of bashing the topic. This approach is clearly non-encyclopedic at its core. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom - WP:NOR. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Gospel. For those who don't know, this term is a Glenn Beck obsession. He likes to harp on the Obama collective salvation quote. But what he's really talking about is the social gospel - not some notion of being (spiritually) saved collectively. --B (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep Obviously the idea of collective salvation is out there, the article just doesn't define it well. Oddly enough Obama might well have picked it up from Moon since Joseph Lowery is a mutual friend. Borock (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you also help with the "work" on keeping it please? It will be nice for those who vote keep to participate in the work. As is there are always too many generals and not enough troops in Afds, as always. End results is that junk accumulates and everyone asks for it to be improved, but no one will spend the effort, as I started out saying here. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will help out if the article is kept. Borock (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it means multiple different things. I'm sure that Moon means it literally, but nobody, within the framework of Christianity, believes in a spiritual "collective salvation" concept - meaning that God is going to say this group of people is going to Heaven because of their teamwork as opposed to their individual state of grace. Obama is just using Christian words (salvation) when he really means a secular concept (helping the poor). He is trying to express the view that if any of us are in poverty, it affects all of us - he isn't making a theological statement. What this article is trying to do is to take two Obama quotes out of context, pretend that he was talking about a spiritual concept (as opposed to using spiritual language in discussing a secular concept), and attack him for it. That's fine for Glenn Beck's show but it's not fine here. I'm no fan of Obama and I can count on one finger the number of democrats I've voted for in my life, but this is really an unfair attack on him. --B (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to have a strong POV slant but POV is not a reason to delete an article. The topic of "collective salvation" seems to be encyclopedic (per Aristophanes edits which he has since reverted out). The stuff from Rev. Moon, Obama and Glenn Beck should be mentioned briefly rather than being the focus of the article. In brief, someone needs to take an atom bomb to the article and rewrite it but the suppression of POV editing should be done via the dispute resolution process not via AFD. I would urge Aristophanes to restore his edits and recruit more editors to improve the article by focusing on the 2000 year history of the concept. (BTW, when the Old Testament prophets exhort the Hebrews to abandon their sinful ways and return to obeying God's commandments, isn't that a kind of collective salvation? Your nation will prosper if you obey God.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Your help in setting aside several days to improve this article will be greatly appreciated Richard. I am sure you can improve it. So shall we count you in on the rescue team? As I said above, there are never enough people to carry out the keep recommendations in Afds, so help in doing the work, post-Afd will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, I will... I will be away for a week so I might not be able to help right away but I certainly will help. Per the comments by Qrsdogg and Aristophanes below, I would be OK with stubifying the article and starting from scratch. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. This is a established theological concept that has received a lot of attention: [1][2][3][4][5]. If the current article is deemed beyond repair we could just stub it for now. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources seem much more neutral than the ones being used before. If the article were built around that kind of theological discussion of the concept (as opposed to being an outlet to bash liberation theology and social justice), then I would vote to keep but radically rewrite it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have just stubbed the article and began a rewrite using only academic sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new stubbed version. I reviewed the previous version via the history and I can see why people want it deleted, however I think it is a topic deserving an article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article as it stands now is entirely different from the article that came to AFD. I believe a renomination should be made if the AFD is still desired. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current version passes muster, in my view, and solves the POV-drenched issues of the incarnation brought to AfD. I especially enjoyed the succeeding quotes of Barack Obama and Reverend Moon in the old version. Conservapedia is that way, my friend. -----------> Carrite (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks better now in shorter form. Just needs to address 1 Corinthians 12:12 "all the members of that one body, being many, are one body" and then it is an Ok stub. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]