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.
Keep Admittedly, this article in its current state lacks references and does not adhere to the neutral point of view. However, a Google Books search clearly demonstrates that this is a notable topic in Roman Catholic theology. We don't delete articles about notable topics. Instead, we improve them, expand them and add references to them. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, a quick perusal through the Google Books link above appears to show many presumably reliably sourced usages of this term that match what little is currently in the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The topic is notable, but there is nothing in this POV attack page worth keeping. A place to start a future article might be the Catholic Encyclopaedia: "Material heresy on the other hand, i.e. an error in faith entertained undesignedly and unconsciously, is in itself neither sinful nor punishable, except where the error is itself inexcusable. In excusable error are all who possess subjectively the firm and honest conviction that they have the true faith of Christ, thus including the vast majority of non-Catholics, who were born and educated in their particular form of belief... The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church." -- 202.124.72.35 (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Keep as rewritten. The article as it stood at the time of nomination was completely unusable, because it was mirepresenting a particular tendentious application of the term (in the context of a fringe position of traditionalist Catholic anti-Protestant polemics) with the actual definition of the term. I have completely removed the old content and replaced it with a simple definition stub sourced to what seems to be a reasonably neutral reliable source. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, prefer merge (of the new stub material) and redirect into Heresy. Not enough substance for a standalone article, and can be better covered in the larger context. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"removed an obnoxious template that was placed here"--DBigXray 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Text of template: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure. This is not an official WP noticeAnarchangel (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As the article stands, it's a stub. It could be expanded well past a dicdef, I imagine. Also, wouldn't there be a WikiProject for the RC Church that may be interested on working on this article? Not for nothing, but that opinion could be helpful, asking the SMEs....Roodog2k (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2012 (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.