Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moralistic therapeutic deism


 * 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn Prezbo (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Moralistic therapeutic deism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Isn't this the very definition of 'something someone made up in school one day'? One or two persons wrote up a single article using the term, and based on what is in the greater scheme a very small study. The article is also hopelessly biased. Example: it says "These beliefs, some of which are incompatible with Christianity, are practiced in some Christian churches." No real source for the incompatibility claim, just some extremist saying that these are not real Christians (according to them). What it really means to say is there is a small and shrinking percent of Christians who think that good people do not go to Heaven, and that God does not want people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, and that it is wrong to be happy, unless you also buy into only their narrow skew on Christianity. So, the article falsely depicts the standard view practiced as doctrinally wrong, and tries to make it out to be immoral. This is not even getting to the insulting misuse of deism. Torquemama007 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn - see below.
 * Delete. It is not encyclopedic. While it is sourced, it could be better organized and I question the notability of the article. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Irrespective of any current deficiencies in the article, the term is notable, since it is discussed extensively in sources that are reliable for theological subject matter:
 * 
 * Jennifer500 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The difference between things made up in school and this is that this is causing a fair old stir up. The article is referenced, there are plenty of ghits. The fact that some people don't like it is irrelevant. Misleading? I don't think the article is. The theology described might be, but that's not the point. The point is that it has been noticed and noted, and discussed. Peridon (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. It's got significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources. I removed the nominator's personal opinions from the end of the article; they should re-read No original research. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not made up in school. It's a published academic concept that has been extensively quoted and analysed. Perfect for an encyclopedia. I suggest you withdraw this nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a term of fairly widespread use, at least among Christians who pay attention to such matters, and as the references show.  It's an attempt at finding a label for the American folk religion, and contrasting that belief system with Christian orthodoxy.  The version I read has references to Christianity Today and The New Republic, which suggests that they were added since the nomination, but they are relevant and they are there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it is only used in an echo-chamber of "anti-Christian" Christian extremists. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability of the term within its cultural milieu has been demonstrated - we need not show that the expression has currency in every possible theological context. Jennifer500 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's framed like this is a generally accepted term, which it surely is not. Torquemama007 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems well cited and notable. LotLE × talk  20:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep--the links pan out. Whether or not something is the "right" use of a term or phrase is not a subject for Wikipedia to adjudicate; we merely collect and report what RS have said, and this is clearly covered by multiple independent RS. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I frankly think that if this was "notable" the rather intense position of the proponents of the term would have drawn some commentary from the mainstream. But I can see where this is going, so if there's something I need to do to give up and end this vote now, tell me and I will go ahead and do that. Torquemama007 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of striking out your nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (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.