Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignorance-based view


 * 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. Sr13 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance-based view

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This does not appear to be a notable topic. A google search returned only 317 entries. most were to the phrase in a non-philosophical context. The few real entries derived from the Wikipedia article. A quick look through the Pan and Penguin dictionaries of Philosophy found no corresponding entry. No entry in the Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Banno 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds to me like agnosticism. Either way, I think the nominator established that the term itself is either nonexistant or rarely used. Calgary 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough sourcing to have this article here without crossing over to WP:OR Corpx 05:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One must take note that a google search is not a gold standard to determine whether the above article is to be kept or removed. When using Google to test for the importance or existence of the above article, one should note that this will be biased in favor of modern subjects of interest to people from developed countries with Internet access, so it should be used with some judgment. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 06:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response True, but if it is a notable philosophical term, a google search would reasonably turn up some sort of reference to it. I've also taken the liberty of looking into some internet-based philosophy glossaries and still nothing. In this case the google search isn't being used as the key element of the assertion of a lack of notability, it is simply one of many supports. Calgary 07:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I also checked on several other paper resources. I thought it might possibly be a term from Islamic theology - but no info in the Penguin Dictionary of Religions, either. It could be a new-age term; but I see no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt. Banno 07:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the New Fontana dictionary of Modern Thought, either. Banno 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 11:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Redirect to Conservopedia ~ Infrangible 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's very good. Calgary 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The technical term for this subject is acatalepsia, incidentally. Tevildo 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and redirect to Acatalepsy. Bearian 21:14, 17 July 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.