Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical Theism


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Feel free to merge/redirect as you see fit.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Classical Theism
One line sub-stub which violates WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS There might be a way to create an article with this name which is not POV and Biased, but this isn't even close to a beginning. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Mo0 [ talk ] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * abstain, we need an article here, and AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 08:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * abstain and cleanup per Kappa. Flyboy Will 08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep tag for expand and expert.--MONGO 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete explain to me what "classical" theism is. Its certainly not what the article states: "Classical Theism is long-standing ideas about God within Christianity." That's POV, as well as covered under Christianity and God. If you tag for cleanup, what precisely do you suggest be the content for this neologistic phrase? Theism already has an article. Slapping "classical" on the front end is meaningless. As it is the article is horrible religious bias, and I fail to see how re-writing it will do anything but create a completely unnecessary duplicate of Theism. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see what the inclusion of the word classical brings to the party other than being a transparent attempt to somehow elevate a single belief system above others.  As the simple definition as given on the page is biased, it is likely that the article itself would be just as biased and would serve as a soapbox.  Additionally, the article is unnecessary as there are others touching on the same subject matter in a far more NPOV manner.  Jim62sch 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per KillerChihuahua's points. ('Classical' suggested to me that it might have been about Anct. Greek/Roamn ideas of theism. Which would have been interesting). --Squiddy 14:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You can read about that at Greek mythology and Roman mythology, and it is interesting. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per KC and Jim - Guettarda 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark for expansion and clean-up. Classical theism is a specific set of theistic beliefs involving belief in one supreme omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God.  This could be included in the "theism" article but is not really presented there currently.  TMS63112 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please WP:CITE, TMS63112, because I've found a number of highly disparate sites and no indication that "Classical theism" is anything other than a neologism utilized different ways by different groups. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand.--Bkwillwm 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand how? Please explain. I would not have listed this if I could see any way to make it into a useful article. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect to theism. FeloniousMonk 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's in the Encyclopedia Britannica.--Jason Gastrich 07:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As a paragraph under "Pantheism" so I suppose we should put a paragraph there also? This is, finally, in the nature of a source or cite, for which I thank you. Are they correct, however? I will remind you that in the recent Guardian test Wikipedia was more, not less, accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica, so while that's the best anyone has done, should it be a separate article, part of Theism, part of Pantheism, or something else? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The phrase has over 200,000 Google hits. It's obviously relevant and important.--Jason Gastrich 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I covered that in my earlier post. Neologism used for a multitude of very, very different meanings. What the Google result is, is "100,000 meanings for the phrase Classical Theism" KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem a little overly passionate about this entry. Do you mind if I ask why? --Jason Gastrich 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously because the phrase is neologism. And not at all settled. I think it'd be difficult to write an article about something that's a desert wax and a floor topping. Mark K. Bilbo 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a pretty clear redirect to theism, merging this one whole sentence into that article. Proto t c 12:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect would work for me, I just cannot see how this can become a viable article on its own, per reasons given above. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as calling Judeo-Islamo-Christianity "classical theism" is POV pushing. See over here where the BBC comments the term is more a neoligism to replace typing the rather long and clumsy "Judeo-Islamo-Christianity." The concepts may be "classical" in a certain set of cultures (particularly Western culture) but there are many beliefs that have been around longer (such as Hindu beliefs). It's rather ethno-centric of us to call something of our heritage "classical" as if it ante-dates all other beliefs somehow. Mark K. Bilbo 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix to at least minimum multi-POV, since each culture has their own classical theism. Just needs lotsa TLC. Zotel - the Stub Maker 03:16, 23 December 2005 (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.