Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil societarianism

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. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil societarianism

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

Quoted, this gets under a hundred GHits, including about a dozen Wikipedia pages in which it's linked. I can't find any evidence that this is a significant concept. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not significant in the literature. Neutrality^talk 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - results for a search at google scholar seem to imply some significance in the literature, but it feels like it would be a better fit at wiktionary, so maybe transwiki, but I don't know if it satisfies policies over there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge, or Redirect If I went by the article alone, I would have supported deletion; there was only one reference and that reference was a broken link. However, I was able to recover it on webarchive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20070225050739/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022107A since deletion rests on a lack of notability and not a failure of editors to include sources, I did a quick search and found the topic in several publications right away:

https://mereorthodoxy.com/civil-societarianism-and-the-place-of-the-church/

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2007/02/religion-government-and-civil-society.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132273

https://books.google.com/books?id=0TSSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=Civil+Societarian&source=bl&ots=f4GUHr7Xrm&sig=DqRMUhiJyZINXcFKXEv8diilO80&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy-zj_YPTAhVJ9YMKHWWmCm0Q6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=Civil%20Societarian&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=iVmkCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Civil+Societarian&source=bl&ots=enLu1usKmy&sig=UDSF8ZqGgErbOYaUayrNwsfJHMs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy-zj_YPTAhVJ9YMKHWWmCm0Q6AEIQTAI#v=onepage&q=Civil%20Societarian&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=RYSxAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=Civil+Societarian&source=bl&ots=qt06dygMrd&sig=IhjRIsSaug9rWHgrOV7o7MuP3-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy-zj_YPTAhVJ9YMKHWWmCm0Q6AEIQzAJ#v=onepage&q=Civil%20Societarian&f=false

My search yielded 3,410 results so this isn't as obscure as the Wikipedia article made it appear. I am not real familiar with the topic, so perhaps this is already covered in a broader article and doesn't require one of its own, in which case it should be merged. There may also be a synonymous phrase already covered in Wikipedia in which case a redirection of this page would be in order. --Truthtests (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But these all use the phrase in different ways — there's no indication that this is a well-understood concept that can be cohesively explained or described. Neutrality^talk 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources listed above are merely a collection of works that use the words next to each other, but there is no consistency in what they mean by the term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not a commonly used term in scholarship, and no widely-accepted meaning; just a rare phrase open to various interpretations by different authors. —Lowellian (reply) 02:18, 16 April 2017 (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.