Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apathetic agnosticism


 * 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 redirect to apatheism. Grand master  ka  11:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apathetic agnosticism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can find no mention of "apathetic agnosticism" aside from the church which the article references, so to say it is a genuine variant of agnosticism is to advance original research and perhaps create a neologism. Alternatively, the article could be moved to Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic, but I doubt that would satisfy our notability guidelines for organizations (see WP:ORG). — Elembis (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, it's OR &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's like advertising at times too.  The article admits in the first sentence that it's presumably the same as apatheism, so why does this article have to exist?  I think it's to promote the church mentioned, but as Elembis already said, that won't pass WP:ORG. -- Tractor  kings  fan  05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't know, and I don't care. I think I just summed up the whole premise. BTW, it fails WP:ORG, too. Realkyhick 06:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Charlene 06:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - there really isn't any difference b/w this and apatheism. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  08:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Improve As co-author of the page, I expressed my own concern at the time (see talk) that it was, perhaps, too much of an 'advert' for the UCTAA (We're not the Moonies, by the way...keep a sense of humour), and invited others to re-write it differently. It would be better if somebody did this, rather than just taking the lazy option of deleting anything that does not correspond with your own internal dogma. Although it's hardly a citation; I know for certain that at least one person (me) genuinely believes in this religious viewpoint, but I am not in the business of telling anybody else what to believe, no more than the UCTAA is.ChrisRed 13:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Apatheism Owlofcreamcheese
 * I can't find a suitable category for the redirect under the guideline Redirect; if it's not a notable topic, it won't be explained within Apatheism (as a redirect with possibilities), and it's not an alternative name or related word, either. — Elembis (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect Sounds Good On second thoughts, and having read the Apatheism page, I think a redirect would be fine, as there is very little difference between 'Apathetic Agnosticism' and 'Apatheism'. The only difference being that the UCTAA is perhaps a little less prone to pour scorn on other's beliefs. Many UCTAA people admit that they still struggle with the third article of belief, in that we do sometimes 'wonder'; but accept that the existence or otherwise of God is not conditional upon our belief in it/him/her/they.  Man cannot 'believe' God into existence, no more than he can 'deny' him into oblivion.  Therefore our struggle with the question is futile, rather than irrelevant. What is true is true, and what is false is false.  It doesn't actually matter whether there is a Wikipage to describe it or not.  We are therefore apathetic :-) I do, however, believe that 'Apathetic Agnosticism' is a more accurate description of the state of mind than 'Apatheism', even at the cost of deleting all mention of the UCTAA from a unified 'Apathetic Agnosticism' page. ChrisRed 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per ChrisRed and Owlofcreamcheese. -- Tractor  kings  fan  22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above--Sefringle 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Owlofcreamcheese. PierceG 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to apatheism. -Sean Curtin 04:02, 19 March 2007 (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.