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. joe decker ^talk 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Endarkenment

[edit]

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

There is no such specific thing as "the Age of Endarkenment" - it's just an easy play on the name of the Age of Enlightenment. It's been used by Christian authors such as Edward Feser in the course of expressing a disagreement with the rise of rationality over religion (or some such; that's the impression I've got in looking for sources). As originally created, this article was largely unreferenced (the one referenced work, this book, does not mention "endarkenment" so who knows what that was for) and about that. However, it was subsequently expanded and a load of other random, even contradictory, uses of the neologism "endarkenment" were thrown in, making it an absurd mess. I've just stripped out the unreferenced and irrelevant stuff, and copyedited it down to just two paragraphs. In doing so I did a pile of searching, and there are undoubtedly plenty of people using "endarkenment" or "the Endarkenment" (random examples in addition to the article sources: [1], [2], [3]), they're all idiosyncratic. Some of them are similar in intent, but they don't all refer to a specific thing that should have an encyclopedia article. — Scott • talk 16:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scott. An article about a phrase that has been used occasionally to describe several entirely different things doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. 31.49.219.125 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing has the feel of a Neologism and an ill-defined one at that. It is certainly true that post-modernism is at times a flight from the rationality that was the basis of the enlightenment and scientific advance. I also resent the assertion that creationism is an aspect of that. Science is not qualified even to ask the question as to whether or not there is (or was) a creator. I accept that some creationists are probably anti-scientific. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2016 (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.