Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher Power

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. No consensus for a merge present here, but a discussion for one is likely a good thing. Agree with Doc Strange that this title should likely be a disambig. lifebaka++ 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Power

Sources are largely self-published (e.g. Dick B. and from organization pages). The language is really exclusive to twelve-step programs. Should be deleted or merged with twelve-step program as there are not enough reliable sources to justify an article just on this topic. Scarpy (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check all these 1650 Google News hits for reliable sources? How about these 2,830 Google Scholar hits? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the number of times the phrase is used means that it's common language with in certain groups, not necessarily that the concept is notable for it's own article; it's always within the context of twelve-step programs. If you read wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms, it cautions against creating articles in these circumstances; even if the language has been around since 1937, it's still only used with in particular sub-cultures. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is either kept or deleted, this should be dabbified (with a disambig for this, Higher Power (album), Higher Power (seaQuest DSV episode), Greatest Hits (Boston album) (which contains a previously unreleased song called "Higher Power") and The Higher Power of Lucky) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeShould go into the process section of twelve-step programs but needs a NPoV fix. It can be explained generally without referencing any particular fellowship's literature so heavily.Advocate (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept is analysed and discussed in independent secondary sources. For example, this book. In this article, 8% of Americans believe in a higher power that is not God. More articles on other nations can be found here, (many of which capitalize Higher Power). Since 8% of the population of the US is 24 million people, the elimination this article would be a grave error. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not about what particular Americans believe, or how many times the phrase appears in various articles. I don't see any evidence that this term is used outside of twelve-step sub-cultures, it's neologism. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are to be judged at AfD on what they could be, not what they are. This concept is held by millions of people, and is distinct from God. It receives scholarly notice--thousands of scholarly notices. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. What it is, is a neologism. Millions of people can still be a subculture, it's language specific to twelve-step. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1930s? Used elsewhere? Used by Immanuel Kant? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge material based on reliable sources to twelve-step program. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concept is heavily, but by no means exclusively, used by twelve step programs. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment show me evidence of it's use by people/organizations with no twelve-step connection, and if there's enough of it, I'll reconsider my vote. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really is unnecessary. That would be like saying I need to show you evidence that the term red shift is used outside of astrophysics. It doesn't matter as long as there are independent sources that discuss and analyze the term. In the scholarly literature there are discussions of the effect the use of the term "Higher Power" has had on atheists and Jews in twelve-step programs. The article already cites a number of books and journal articles that were not published by AA. And I have already demonstrated that tens of millions of people who are not in AA use the term to describe their religious beliefs. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's no comparison. Red shift is non-ambiguous documented scientific concept. I'm not really sure what the "effect" of a Higher Power (what does that even mean?) on atheists and Jews has to do with the articles significance; nothing, I'm sure, if you can't cite the study you're referencing. The article currently only cites one reliable source (properly). -- Scarpy (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity is irrelevant. Here is a source that talks about the ambigiuty of belief in a higher power. I have also provided sources galore above. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - search results are not sources. The source you provide is not discussing the Higher Power concept. Ambiguity is relevant. If you can't describe what something is with reliable sources, then it's a neologism and shouldn't have an article. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put forward a scholarly article that analyzes the topic, and you say it is not a source? I think you will say anything to a vain attempt to get this article deleted. It's not happening. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. The article is titled: "Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy" the abstract describes it as an attempt to "measure how individuals define the terms religiousness and spirituality..." I don't see anything in the abstract that mentions that "Higher Power" concept, and from the Google Scholar snippet [1] it looks like it uses the phrase (not the concept, it's in lowercase), and doesn't provide a definition of it. This back and for is degenerating and getting a little too personal for my taste, and I'm not going to continue it. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a non-specific diety is significant, not only within the twelve-step program but also in general discussions of theology. But even if it were only in the twelve-step concept, the term is certainly notable. A term used for 75 years by over 2,000,000 people is hardly a neologism, and concepts specific to subcultures can still be very notable. Also, Dick B is not a self-published writer, he is a very well-established writer who, in accordance with the anonymity traditions of twelve step programs, does not use his last name. His works should not be discounted for that reason. Eauhomme (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my experience the concept does not refer to a "non-specific diety" (but, it depends on who you ask, as this is a neologism, not science). Dick B. is self-published, despite of the fact that the material cited with him as the author is a link to edit the page (like some kind of cry for help?) [2]. The article is from here: [3]. No, this is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it is self-published (like his books). According WP:NEO "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources." There is currently only one used in the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of WP:NEO: "words and terms that have recently been coined". 75 years?!? Eauhomme (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair, don't selectively quote things. This isn't a game, we're trying to make a reliable encyclopedia. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not and I'm not. Leave your value judgments to yourself. I am quoting a Wikipedia policy, and pardon me if it does not fit your purpose. Eauhomme (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't quote the full first sentence from WP:NEO in your definition. That's selective quoting. It's reads like this: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." I suspect that's because it's not in "traditional" dictionaries (wiktionary is not authoritative in this case) [4], [5], [6]; and that's it's exclusively used within a twelve-step context (Kant didn't speak English natively, and the instance PR found could easily be a translator's choice, but if not and there was a history of such uses, the article could be re-written that way). The first condition in the opening sentence from WP:NEO is the only one that could be used against deleting this article on the grounds that it's a neologism, and it all depends on how it's interpreted. 75 years, as words go, is not that long. At any rate, age is not the only criteria.

Like with PR, this is getting a tad too personal. I'm going to leave our back and forth at this for now. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the full definition you state changes nothing. You quote it as though parts 2 and 3 invalidate part 1, when the definition actually implies that all 3 should apply. I "selectively quote", as you say, to show that part 1 is invalid. 75 years is a significant amount of time here, and WP:NEO exists largely to keep out slang, things made up, and catchphrases.Eauhomme (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit co-operatively to improve rather than suggest deletion when you don't get your own way. The history and talk pages for Higher Power record that Scarpy edited this page from October 2007 to August 2008 and only seems to have decided it was a neologism unworthy of an article when the 3rd Opinion he sought on the 25th July over a disagreement between him and me about sources didn't materialise. In the circumstances, the timing of his proposal for deletion appears to be more a matter of an editing dispute than an attempt to improve WP. I have suggested he edits any phraseology of mine he objects to and would still encourage him to do so and also to seek mediation or some other WP editing help rather than propose deletion because he objects to my edits. I'd like to thank everyone for their comments here as it's given me a better understanding of how the page might be edited for a more balanced article if the decision by the community is to keep the page. Dakinijones (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll point you to the Arguments to avoid during deletion discussions guidelines, specifically the arguments to the person section: "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors." -- Scarpy (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2008 (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.