Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnostic theism (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agnostic theism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".

Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.

There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...

My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.

I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.

The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.

The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.

8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG

The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.

One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.

Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.

The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources currently in the article, though they are few, are strong enough for the concept to meet the general notability guideline. Part of the argument in the nomination would apply to agnostic atheism as well (i.e. "the meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism"). Furthermore, I disagree; agnosticism isn't an alternative to theism and atheism, nor is it mutually exclusive with atheism, one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. In regard to "One of the citations is a broken link": per WP:LR, "Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online", but rather merely that it exists. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Godsy. We have an article on agnostic atheism, so this could stay too. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing in the article suggests that "agnostic theism" is a discussed concept, let alone notable. Wikipedia is not an essay.--Rpclod (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @MRD2014 and @Godsy, thank you for providing your comments. Here are the applicable rules.


 * The WP:RULES case for deletion: I came to edit this article to add citations and detail, but I couldn't reliable sources for "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" being a notable philosophical term. Yet the first line of the lead:"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism." I believe this article from line one is in need of support and violates the following WP policies. unless reliable sources can be found for all of the content, which appears to be original research. Our article needs reliable sources showing that "agnostic theism" is a noteworthy topic of discussion. Here are the relevant Wikipedia "nutshell" descriptions with links to the relevant section.


 * From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR
 * "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.


 * From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS
 * "This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."


 * From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V
 * "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.

My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.


 * From "WP:neologism" WP:NEO:"Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term."


 * Taking a look at the first citation, for example, where the lead defines the term "agnostic atheism" of the article. The following is not supported by the citations:


 * "'Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is.'"The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic.  Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined.


 * At best, the way it is now, the article builds the definition using original research from a single lay source and no sources on 'agnostic theism". A valid citation must be someone with credentials in philosophy telling us the meaning of agnostic theism'.


 * If you think I'm wrong on the above please straighten me out. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. If reliable verifiable sources can establish that this is a term with notable use rather than a neologism, I'll withdraw the deletion request.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP. There are plenty of scholarly papers that talk about Kierkegaard's agnosticism - and he was certainly a theist. Also see section on religious agnosticism in https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism . Also, wikipedia articles are about concepts, not terms. JimWae (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

'''In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name. '''

From: WP:3PARTY

"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."

See also WP:Synthesis of published material

I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.

@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means.  If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism.  Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.

@Godsy @MRD2014  I don't think the existance of agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.

Thank you all for your participation.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.

From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."

From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

From: "WP:Independent" WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."

The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected: "'Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is.'"

At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Shitty writing is not a rationale for deletion. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Godsy. This term gets just under 600 hits in Google Books, many of which are prima facie WP:RS, so this meets the WP:GNG. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Patar knight, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that there are a notable number of people using this term or it would not have 600 hits on Google's hit counters. The problem is that this doesn't address the problem I think we must address. That problem is that we cannot use Wikipedia voice to open up an article telling readers "Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism," without reliable, verifiable, sources, including third-party independent sources that define "agnostic theism" and "theistic agnosticism" and specifically define these terms to attribute the meaning the article claims. The one citation cited doesn't use either of thes terms, nor does it define them. Without the requisite sources we are not in compliance with the important Wikipedia policies and guidelines I listed above. We can't use our own reasoning to arrive at conclusions, we can only say things when they are properly sourced.    K Sci  &#160; (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)    K Sci  &#160; (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism, as nearly as I can tell. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hmmmm... Although Patar knight's "but it gets 600 hits" argument isn't as effective as actually putting up three or four book links for us to examine here, a quick glance at the Google Books hits for the term quickly verifies that what they say is true: this is a readily used, scholarly term appearing in multiple published sources and seems a concept about which an article can readily be moved past a simple dictionary definition. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is a thing on social media; I've seen people labeled themselves as such. Our core readership might be looking for this article. If it is not kept, the closing sysop should take serious consideration to redirect it or merge instead. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience.   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to agnosticism - There are enough sources to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia, but I fail to see a compelling argument for why we need a stand-alone article for a neologism that seems to so clearly be a flavor of agnosticism. Indeed, that article touches on atheism and theism, quoting e.g. Kierkegaard. I'm surprised not to see anyone else suggesting a merge. If, in the future, this concept begins to take up an undue portion of the space in the agnosticism article, and/or if the body of literature on the concept sufficiently distinguishes it for a stand-alone article, then I wouldn't be opposed to spinning it off again. At this point, however, merge. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative.   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (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.