Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian humanism


 * 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian humanism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

- most of the article has nothing to do with "libertarian humanism". - the subject isn't wiki-worthy. - creator of the page refuses to accept edits. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

so, your nomination is based on... personal feelings and beliefs? do you have a valid reason for deletion; perhaps the article has no purpose? because my personal feeling is that there is at least one person wanting to liberate thier notion of humanism to depart from the status-quo of modern currents, which lean towards a popular, extreme form of secularism, society and culture. Carl Sagan is a humanist who does not adhere to atheism. http://www.ihumanism.org/2014/11/carl-sagan-a-humanist-you-should-know.html and this sentiment is echoed in his protege, Neil deGrasse Tyson; though Dr. Tyson's affiliation with the American Humanist Association is yet unclear to me. Xan81 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the article says little to nothing about the subject of Libertarian humanism. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

not to mention the spectre of Joseph Stalin's State Atheism - which is itself a reason to include libertarianism; if not anarchism. Xan81 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, only a collection of a few direct quotes, none of which even demonstrate the existence of "libertarian humanism" as distinct from secular humanism. No evidence of notability. Jacknstock (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

that isn't an argument. you're suggesting that because the subject is generally unknown the article is invalid? I'm not an author of encyclopedias, as I'm sure many people aren't; and there are many scant articles about. also, I'm not clear on what is missing from the article - it describes a lifestance and manner of thought - which are not claimed to be the original author's views. Xan81 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

distinction from secular humanism is the anarchism, which is held contemptuous to influence by state and society. Xan81 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm stating that the subject fails notability guidelines. It also fails Wikipedia policy because it is barely more than a collection of long quotations. Jacknstock (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

which guidelines? and is there another viewpoint which discusses the ideas which is in opposition to common, popular and proselytized atheistic notions which may be offensive and harmful, hateful to people's faiths and traditions? Because there does exist a current of conservative antitheism pushed by popular figures, such as Richard Dawkins - Militant Atheism Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.Dec 5, 2016 Militant atheism - Conservapedia www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism Xan81 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

perhaps the article should be a stub Xan81 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No encyclopaedic content to salvage. It's just a poor collection of quotes, as mentioned above. I'd suggest to the author of the article that they read the General Notability Guidelines thoroughly before they create another. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

that also isn't an argument - still no violation directly cited... begining to seem like persecution Xan81 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "No encyclopaedic content to salvage" is definitely an argument in favour of deletion - why would an encyclopaedia include an entry that isn't encyclopaedic? Now, are you actually going to address that issue or are you just going to make questionable, petulant comments on every singe !vote? It's not helping you. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

there is no issue to address - it's an incomplete article because I'm neither a theologian nor an author, as stated before. it's an incomplete article; but I am positing an active and extant lifestance. persecution is persecution. Xan81 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with Wikipedia's rule about Assuming Good Faith? I've never had any interaction with you. Accusing me of persecution is frankly ridiculous. If it's an incomplete article, it shouldn't have been published - you should have worked on it in your sandbox or as a draft & then submitted it through the Articles for Creation process. Don't accuse people of persecuting you when all I am doing is participating in a standard process, which is designed to sift out articles that aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

ok - I concede the debate on grounds of not caring enough to pursue creation of an article. I am glad, however, to have made the arguments that I have - I do believe atheism, in its current form, is toxic to liberty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation cheers - and don't hurt anyone. Xan81 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is questioning the validity of your views, this debate is about the article and nothing more. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone did - I just pointed out that the arguments presented by the prosecution were baseless if they were unbecoming of wikipedia's morale and leadership. no matter, I have conceded and leave the discussion. I guess I should have went with "agnostic secular humanism," because I get a whole lot more concession with that: https://www.facebook.com/AgnosticSecularHumanism/ 157 adherents and counting. cheers Xan81 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the people participating in this discussion, as far as I know, are employees of Wikipedia. Can I say that you must not blank the article while it is the subject of a Deletion Discussion? It may be seen as disruptive editing. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as entirely original research, so WP:TNT applies. The concept may be discussed (Gbook preview), although I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's a fringe topic. In either case, this page ain't the article Wikipedia needs on the topic. Thus, delete. Judging by the course of this AfD, this can't happen soon enough. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2017 (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.