200:
environmentalist and writer on sustainability and environmental topics"; the other is a link to a newly created website called "Spiritual but not
Religious"; and there are two links to a guy with a blog who has no name or bio. And again, I have found no published sources that demonstrate that this is not just another unique personal philosophy phrase with no notable history or attribution. It should be deleted in my opinion unless it can be demonstrated that this is another phrase for "agnostic theism" (in which case it should be merged) - but I don't believe that can be demonstrated.
302:
upon something very trivial can become the subject of a surprisingly large number of "likes.") An academic paper (especially one published in a peer-reviewed journal) would be a far more reliable source, but more than a single such source would be needed to clearly establish the notability of this topic as distinct from the several closely related articles that already exist on
Knowledge. Speaking of which, can anyone provide a reference for the NYU paper? --
241:
You guys! This is a very new and growing sub-culture within agnosticism and, frankly, I'm very chilled to think it's being squelched simply because nobody with a degree has gotten around to exploring it. Particularly when the deletion is recommended by someone who is obviously biased toward religion.
301:
and justify the need for a separate article about the topic. I would also add that the existence of a
Facebook community about the topic with 1500 followers does not meet Knowledge's standard of notability. (From personal experience, I can attest to the fact that even Facebook communities founded
296:
at the present time. If in the future, "spiritual agnosticism" becomes the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, I would have no problem with the article being recreated on the basis of those sources once they become available. We have to base a decision on what is available right
365:
GScholar shows 22 hits for the term, which is not a lot. Looking at some of the most likely hits shows passing references to "spiritual agnosticism" and most of the those use spiritual as an adjective to mean agnosticism about spiritual matters, as opposed to agnosticism with regard to schools of
199:
I have looked and found no academic sources for "Spiritual
Agnosticism". The current article has 5 sources, all of which are personal opinion blogs. One is by a "digital strategist managing large scale web projects for government" (I believe this is the creator of the page); another is by "an
378:
but it is not clear this has much to do with the type of spiritual agnosticism mentioned in the article. In short, I could find no reliable sources for the article and it is dubious whether the topic itself could be claimed as notable according to the general notability guidelines (see
418:
was published in 1921. If encyclopedic material based upon these sources is to appear at all, it would be best placed in one of several existing articles which already exist and which have significant overlap in general subject matter, namely
242:
There's a
Facebook community with 1500 followers discussing this topic. Also, someone at NYU has recently written a paper. This differs from agnosticism in a very specific way: The application of spiritual practices in the individual's life.
291:
I have to concur with KillerChihuahua's argument. It may be a "very new and growing sub-culture within agnosticism" but even so, I would note that sometimes an article about a topic that may potentially be notable in the future is just
168:
222:
and are not sourced to
Knowledge's standards. (Nota bene; I have removed two of the sources as completely unacceptable to Knowledge, being unknown and uncredited blog and website.)
218:
per nom unless decent sourcing is found. While the article makes good logical points about the difference between
Agnostic theism and Spiritual agnosticism, these points seem to be
277:; NOR, V, and NPOV are three of the core content policies of Knowledge. I assure you, it matters a great deal whether "nobody with a degree has gotten around to exploring it".
162:
476:
121:
456:
261:
to be "very new". We're an encyclopedia. We want to write the established stuff, not the cutting edge stuff. That's not my opinion, that's policy. Please see
414:
and warrant the topic's existence as a separate article. It was previously mentioned that "someone at NYU has recently written a paper" and a book entitled
128:
94:
89:
98:
81:
373:
Balmforth, Ramsden. Spiritual
Agnosticism: And the Sermon on the Mount in Relation to Problems of Social Reconstruction. CW Daniel, 1921.
183:
150:
270:
266:
17:
262:
144:
435:
428:
488:
468:
447:
396:
347:
329:
311:
286:
251:
231:
209:
63:
140:
506:
281:
226:
40:
85:
190:
443:
307:
274:
77:
69:
502:
439:
438:, which is not necessarily the same as "spiritual agnosticism" according to the article's definition. --
392:
325:
303:
36:
317:
278:
247:
243:
223:
339:
201:
176:
156:
343:
205:
484:
464:
293:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
501:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
388:
321:
424:
58:
411:
380:
298:
480:
460:
432:
407:
384:
334:
The author of that might be more traditionally talking about some kind of agnostic
219:
115:
420:
335:
297:
now, and at this point in time, I just don't see enough coverage to satisfy
54:
495:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
316:
The reference to the NYU paper/essay was , but was deleted by
111:
107:
103:
175:
387:
for guidance on what constitutes a reliable source).
366:
thought. One reference that seems to use the term is
320:. It is unclear if the essay was ever published. --
477:list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions
431:. Indeed, one of the article's current sources (
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
509:). No further edits should be made to this page.
457:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
271:Knowledge:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research
189:
8:
475:Note: This debate has been included in the
455:Note: This debate has been included in the
474:
454:
7:
24:
406:It does not seem that sufficient
267:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
383:for details on notability and
263:Knowledge:No original research
1:
489:18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
469:18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
448:00:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
397:20:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
348:11:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
330:00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
312:00:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
287:20:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
252:20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
232:20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
210:19:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
64:11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
436:Spiritual but not religious
429:Spiritual but not religious
526:
498:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
275:Knowledge:Verifiability
416:Spiritual Agnosticism
78:Spiritual agnosticism
70:Spiritual agnosticism
257:WIkipedia does not
434:) is really about
48:The result was
491:
471:
410:exist to satisfy
220:original thoughts
517:
500:
284:
229:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
62:
34:
525:
524:
520:
519:
518:
516:
515:
514:
513:
507:deletion review
496:
425:Agnostic theism
282:
227:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
53:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
523:
521:
512:
511:
492:
472:
451:
450:
400:
399:
376:
375:
374:
368:
367:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
235:
234:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
522:
510:
508:
504:
499:
493:
490:
486:
482:
478:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
452:
449:
445:
441:
440:Mike Agricola
437:
433:
430:
426:
422:
417:
413:
409:
405:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
372:
371:
370:
369:
364:
361:
360:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
304:Mike Agricola
300:
295:
290:
289:
288:
285:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
253:
249:
245:
240:
237:
236:
233:
230:
225:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
497:
494:
415:
403:
362:
258:
238:
215:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
421:Agnosticism
389:Mark viking
336:panpsychism
322:Mark viking
254:jakedimare
163:free images
318:Jakedimare
294:WP:TOOSOON
244:Jakedimare
239:NOT DELETE
503:talk page
481:• Gene93k
461:• Gene93k
283:Chihuahua
228:Chihuahua
59:talk page
37:talk page
505:or in a
340:Allisgod
202:Allisgod
122:View log
39:or in a
404:Delete:
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
427:, and
412:WP:GNG
381:WP:GNG
363:Delete
299:WP:GNG
279:Killer
273:, and
224:Killer
216:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
408:WP:RS
385:WP:RS
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
485:talk
465:talk
444:talk
393:talk
344:talk
326:talk
308:talk
259:want
248:talk
206:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
55:J04n
191:TWL
120:– (
487:)
479:.
467:)
459:.
446:)
423:,
395:)
346:)
338:.
328:)
310:)
269:,
265:,
250:)
208:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
483:(
463:(
442:(
391:(
342:(
324:(
306:(
246:(
204:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.