Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical theism

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. J04n(talk page) 04:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical theism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There are no references provided to substantiate that this is not original research, or entirely fabricated. The concepts make sense, are rational, reasonable, but there is no indication as to when or from whom (neither deity nor person) that this concept originated.

While there are two references, both books, neither book is cited nor mentioned in the article itself. The reference section, which lists the books, does not specify the relevant chapter or page number or quote from either book; any of those would be supportive, probably adequate. The book titles don't indicate that they are about anything other than general theology. FeralOink (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there are "citation needed" tags in the article that show it being tagged since 2008, yet no progress has been made in adding citations where it is indicated that they are needed. --FeralOink (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Classical theism" is not a neologism; it has a well-established usage as a Google Books search on the phrase demonstrates. Via Google Books, I encountered [1] which quotes the Christian philosopher Ronald H. Nash stating that "The older, traditional view [of God] is frequently referred to simply as theism, often as Christian theism, sometimes as classical theism, and occasionally as Thomistic theism." If "classical theism" is merely a synonym for Christian theism, a redirect to God in Christianity would be appropriate, a solution which would preserve "classical theism" as a search term. However, I'm by no means well versed in the nuances of Christian theology, so it may be the case that someone can articulate how "classical theism" is sufficiently distinct from the broader category of Christian theism that it deserves its own article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify or redirect to Monotheism - the article, as pointed out above, is entirely original research. So while this article is not an especially good start, an article on this topic might be appropriate ... although on further review on Google Scholar - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=classical+theism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47 - most of the references to "classical theism" are really just talking about "theism" and calling it "classical" in order to differentiate it from pantheism or modernist philosophies - "classical theism" isn't really its own thing. --B (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Stubify: Since I wrote my comment yesterday, I gave this topic more thought and looked into a bit more. Classical theism is a subset of monotheism characterized by a belief in certain divine attributes, including God's immutability, impassibility, simplicity, timelessness and existence independent of all else. [2] (See also [3][4]). Classical theism is monotheistic, but not all monotheistic traditions hold that God possesses the attributes postulated by classical theism. Redirecting to Monotheism would not be ideal. A redirect to God in Abrahamic religions would arguably be a better choice, but I would argue against it at this point because (1) classical theism can exist outside the context of the Abrahamic religions (e.g. "Plato's God", Neoplatonism - [5]) and (2) classical theism is based upon philosophical premises, while the Abrahamic religions claim that their basis for their understanding of God's nature derives from divine revelation (albeit this revelation is traditionally held to be consistent with the philosophical tenets of classical theism). In short, it's a notable, reasonably well-defined, topic (WP:GNG) supported by numerous WP:RS that wouldn't fit well with a redirect to any existing article of which I'm currently aware. The article is clearly in poor shape though and needs to be rewritten to conform to WP standards. However, this problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and does not require deletion. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I instigated this Afd. I don't know much about the subject. I went to Hebrew school on Sunday's when I was growing up in New Mexico. I am not especially interested in the subject, can't motivate myself to get motivated about it, I confess. I am annoyed by people on Quora and elsewhere on the internet who are referencing this article as a basis for the definition and legitimacy of Classical Theism though. I am perfectly willing to accept that the problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. But the article has been sitting here, in this state, since 2008, unsurmounted for five years. Is this something that I need to ignore, and not complain about further, given the fact that I don't want to repair the article, and that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced effort, so this is an inherent, structural limitation? If that is the case, tell me, and I will thank you, and hold my peace, without any sarcasm or disgruntlement.

Afterthought: I hope that the official Wikipedia policy for nominating an article for deletion under these circumstances isn't that I then am obliged to surmount the problems with it? Urg... I haven't nominated articles for deletion to excess, maybe three times in 18 months, even though I have wanted to do so on innumerable occasions, but held back.

Okay, let's say that I am not obliged to surmount. What happens next? --FeralOink (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Your concerns about the state of the article are certainly valid; it is problematic in multiple respects and needs a thorough rewrite. From a Wikipedia policy standpoint though, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." (WP:IMPERFECT) Based on the reliable sources I presented earlier, the concept itself seems notable (WP:GNG) and sufficiently distinct from existing articles such as Monotheism to warrant its own article. With good editing and proper referencing, it has the potential to be a good, well-written, article and as such, the "deletion of articles with potential should be avoided" (WP:POTENTIAL). Anyways, you don't need to ignore the problems with this article; one way to encourage other editors to improve it is to put in a request at a relevant Wikiproject. WikiProject_Theology would be the most suitable place, but as it seems to be currently inactive, you could also try WP:JUDAISM and/or WP:Christianity for example. If no one else steps forward, I might rewrite the article as a Stub at some point (if I have time) using the reliable sources I presented earlier for inline citations...but I'm probably not the best editor for this job as I learned most of what I now know about the concept of classical theism after encountering this deletion discussion. So I'd prefer to let someone else with a deeper understanding present this topic to the world. :) --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite - it is a subject definitely worthy of an article but, like so many other wikipedia articles on religion, needs to be re-written. If that will ever be done or not is of course another matter. Definitely should not be merged into "Monotheism" or "Abrahamic religions" as one of the things the article gets right is that the concept owes a lot to Aristotle.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - See [6] and [7] and [8], which use the term to refer to a type of doctrine; i.e., the concept and term have coverage in prima facie reliable sources. None of this means the article can't be rewritten.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - The term classical theism may be found in some authors, but that does not make it in any way a technical term with a defined content in academic writing to justify an article on it. "Classical" seems to function as an equivalent of traditional or mainstream. Apart from the references to Aristotle, Averroes, Plotinus and Maimonedes, the names associated with Cl.Th. are questionable. Plato himself had three "first principles" (The Good or in earlier writings the realm of ideas, the demiurge and matter). Anselm's Proslogion (chap 2) contains these words "Lord, thou who bestowest understanding ..." A.'s God is intensely personal which contradicts the opening definition and the same could be said of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Furthermore, Anselm approaches the existence of God from an 'a priori' angle (the ontological argument) The second paragraph of the "Major Concepts" section is also highly questionable (I'll put details on the talk-page if requested there. I simply can't find enough useful material to favour merging, but maybe some snippets might enrich "Theism". Jpacobb (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find reason to disagree with the conclusion that classical theism is not a "technical term with a defined content in academic writing." Some examples of reference works which devote a subsection to discussing classical theism include the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy [9], An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies [10], and even the Encyclopedia Britannica [11]. Granted, there is some fluidity in the theological concept, but the same can be said for other theological concepts too such as monotheism (e.g. the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam contrasted with Christian Trinitarianism). Nevertheless, these reference texts demonstrate that that the topic is sufficiently self-cohesive and definable to exist as a notable concept in academic writing. What matters as far as WP is concerned is that academic authors and reference works do discuss the concept at length so that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (satisfies WP:GNG). --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. Mike Agricola has amply demonstrated that this term has currency in the academic realm, and there really is not suitable target for a merge. Theism and monotheism are too broad for this to fit into and God in Abrahamic religions isn't suitable because this view was held by Greek philosophers as well as Abrahamic philosophers. This article has plenty of potential and it's current poor quality is not a reason to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (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.