Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheocracy (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 06:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheocracy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is fundamentally misleading because it presents atheocracy as a fairly well-defined concept. It's not and the term isn't used in scholarly discourse. It's an ill-defined neologism used as a rhetorical device by a handful of authors who typically disagree about the meaning of the term. Contrast the very ORish definition given in the article with the one (see references) of the man who thinks he coined the term in 2008 (atheocrats are those "who wish to "impose" their pro-homosexuality and pro-choice views on society"), an American bishop ("atheocracy — a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers"), a 19th-century author who seems to equate it with secularism. Pichpich (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just realized that this was deleted six years ago. Consensus can change though so it's best to have a second AfD. Pichpich (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be just an expression used by various people for rhetorical purposes, not something with a definite meaning as used in scholarship. The real article would probably be Secularism or perhaps Militant atheism. BigJim707 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: meaning of word seems difficult to determine. Article seems to include every Google-books occurrence of the word as an "External link", but it doesn't add up to a clear encyclopedic topic. PamD 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism created as a polemical term. Carrite (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you sure it's a neologism? I've got sources reaching back to the early 1800s. The term has been used to describe the Soviet Union in the early 20th century and America in the 21st century.--Coin945 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism for something that doesn't exist, sourced largely to fringe websites with a few real sources about a different topic thrown in to make it seem legitimate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not so sure that it is a "rhetorical device by a handful of authors who typically disagree about the meaning of the term". Sure it is defined only by what theocracy is not, but that doesn't make the topic any less valid. The "other" is essentially the same thing - whatever the "other" is is defined by what "we" are not by default. I don't think they disagree on what the concept means. They a;; agree that atheocracy beliefs in and follows everything that theocracy doesn't, and are just commenting on different aspects of this. Plus, of course religious sources are going to be hyperbolic with things like "a society that is actively hostile to..." or "those "who wish to impose...". We just need to find non-religious sources to balance this out.--Coin945 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the examples you list (and as PamD points out, that seems to be the full list of the half-dozen people who ever used the term in print) every author seems to believe he's using a neologism and is unaware of previous uses. Some you scare quotes 'atheocracy', some use italics, others say "what I would call atheocracy" and Carlin even says "I've just coined this term". There is no set definition of the term and "what theocracy is not" could mean anything. Pichpich (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmmm..... I think you have a point there.......--Coin945 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.