Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Agnostic theism

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Agnostic theism


Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology and concept remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic atheism". Though related concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish only that there is an overlap in concepts, but they do not establish a historical use of the term "agnostic atheism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the interests promoting the term, which does not appear to have caught on, the term has no significant philosophical history. There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...

My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism unsuccessfully promoted by a limited group of activists. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers and considered pejorative by many theist.

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used as more than a pejorative in connection with the concept described.

I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic atheism" is widely known.

The terms "agnostic theism" and "theistic agnosticism" are not found in philosophical or popular use beyond a couple atheist blogs and activist author Austin Cline working for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology.

The article citations refer to sources discussing the idea that there is an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic atheism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss.

8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG

The terms the article says are philosophical concepts appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.

One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.

Credible citations to the term "agnostic theism" with the meaning described in the article not exist.

The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused - are you proposing that the actual discussion page Talk:Agnostic theism should be deleted? There is an active article attached to this talk page, so this would be highly unusual. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Talk pages shouldn't be deleted, "when a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer discussed, do not delete the content, even your own—archive it instead", WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the recommendation to delete was not intended for the Talk page, but was intended for the article. I will repost for the article. I agree that the talk page should not be deleted.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.