Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agonist (Christian)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agonist (Christian)

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

Per WP:MADEUP. There is no reliable source cited for the usage of this term, and Google Books doesn't come up with ~~anything~~ much either. The description is thus original synthesis. St Anselm (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some uses of the phrase "Christian agonist" in reliable sources, often in reference to Milton. On the other hand, that's not what this article is about. What this article is about is a fringe synthesis of religious topics. Some of this material is derived from www.christian-agonist.com (and, indeed, that appears as an external link). This article doesn't link to agon.us, but some of the contributor's other work clearly derives from it. Someone with some familiarity with the broader Christian topics may need to review the contributions of All Worlds (talk · contribs); there is related material at Agon, Cafeteria Christianity, Saulieu and probably more that seems dubious at best, and I have substantial concerns about much of Sacred cockfight. I don't see anything in a reliable source to support any of this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a strong feeling of both synthesis and fringe about this article (and the others named by Squeamish Ossifrage), and a distinct lack of proper sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely the article does establish the existence of the term and activity, and attempts of collection of knowledge disseminated around the globe and would deserve something more than claims of fringe and simple deletion without at least some efforts of salvage of information. All Worlds (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Synth. --No unique names 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- An article on the Greek word Agonizomai (I strive) and the theology concerned with it, might well be encycloaedic, but I suspect this article fails WP:NEO. Certainly I have never heard the term. The article might be edited and repurposed to the object I am suggesting.
- Your comments are appreciated and the article will be attempted to be edited and rewritten during this interim in the pursuit of a better wiki-article. All Worlds (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite – As a term used in a Christian context, "agonist" seems to be on the border-line: a few writers are using it but I can't find evidence that suggests the word has become part of the main-line religious academic vocabulary. However, the main problem seems to me to be the "essay style" of the article which seems to contain a lot of OR and large chunks depend on primary and/or sources which fail to meet Wiki's criteria for reliability. It is hard to see how this article can be rescued: if something is needed on this subject it would probably be easier to sit down and write it from scratch. Jpacobb (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rewrite is most certainly heard, even write it from scratch, and an alternate over an outright and counter-constructive deletion, if possible to get done properly, which shall be attempted. All Worlds (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There don't appear to be reliable sources that establish this as a Christian denomination, as the article claims, or as a separate term with a well-defined meaning. The sources available show that the phrase "Christian agonist" has been used on a few occasions, but there's nothing significant in reliable sources to show its notability as a term. I'm not sure whether it's WP:OR or not, but it seems likely that there is an element of synthesis, as argued above. --Batard0 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 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.