Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatianism
Good point, Flex.  If anything, the redirect should be in the opposite direction to properly reflect the creationism vs. traducianism debate, which is a very old one.  Note http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm  New Advent, sense #3 of "creationism", which is identical to the usage purportedly applied to the misspelled "creatianism", and that most of the more in-depth dictionaries include this same sense of the word under their definition of "creationism".  AFAIK, none of the dictionaries, none, even include the word "creatianism", and if any do at all, it would be a simple redirect to "creationism".  This attempt at defining the premise as "creatianism" is, unfortunately, a non-sequitur bordering on or constituting .  We can't legitimately use a century-old aberration of spelling to redefine this sense of "creationism" in WP; it's simply not a credible presentation of the topic because the concept (creationism as against traductionism) is already a very standard use of the normal spelling of "creationism
— User:Kenosis, 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)