Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular coercion

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. The two "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based reasons advanced as arguments for deletion. Sandstein 18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secular coercion

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

Not notable concept. The only source uses the term once without defining it. Appears to be just a conjunction of two words as opposed to a notable portmanteau. aprock (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike the similarly-titled article above in the form of an unsourced original essay, this one is a Non-Notable Neologism. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This phrase, along with its inverse (religious coercion), is a frequently used phrase in English language Israeli media. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable for own article. Can be merged with (religious coercion). Marokwitz (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike Religious coercion, it is non-notable due to lack of reliable sources. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are a number of newspaper articles that use the term such as this one from Ynet, this one from Arutz Sheva, this one from Israel HaYom, and many others, some of which don't use the term exactly but discuss the concept like this one by ABC News. --PiMaster3 ^talk 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but really could be merged into Religious coercion, the opposite side of the same coin. Neither article is named well, though. On second thought, maybe merge to Secular humanism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:47, 26 January 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.