Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. However, this result was so tainted by canvassing that it should not prejudice a fresh AFD free of such activity. Courcelles (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheism

[edit]
Nontheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are virtually no Reliable Sources on the topic of "nontheism". Furthermore, the word "nontheism" does not appear in any reliable dictionary - and this encyclopedia should not be used as a platform to promote new words. The content in the article is not too bad, but could go into any of several articles on related topics, such as atheism, irreligion, antireligion, antitheism, etc. Noleander (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: This AFD, well-trafficked as it has been, was not actually transcluded to the WP:AFD daily log page properly. It has been transcluded onto today's log page, and thus the discussion will run for another seven days to ensure a representative sample is being drawn from AFD participants. –xenotalk 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- you need to look beyond the dictionary over here. I find this proposal to be seriously inappropriate. The term is a notable, encyclopedic term, period. Greg Bard 19:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some details on why you think "nontheism" is notable, given that it does not appear in any reliable dictionaries? If you google "nontheism" you'll see some results, but in almost every case it appears to be used synonymously with "atheism", would you agree? --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I see the developing discussion here, I'm leaning more towards Merge and Redirect, either to Nontheistic religions or to Atheism and religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know there was a recent "merge" discussion at that link you provide, but I believe that the AfD may get participation from a broader cross-section of editors, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true; I simply meant that editors here will find further discussion of the matter at that link. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like a lot of work is needed in this area. Wiktionary (about the only dictionary that does acknowledge the existence of the word "nontheism") says: "[nonthiesm] was intended as a generalization of atheism ... . Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007." and "[some use the term] nontheism to mean 'weak atheism'”. It looks to me like the path of least resistance has been taken: rather than do the hard job of writing a single article on atheism/nontheism, two articles (athiesm and nontheism) have been created independently, as a sort of an odd POV fork. In the corporate world, this would be termed "empire building" :-) --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: The above editor is the nominator of this article for deletion.
Comment - Another weird thing going on here: List of atheists redirects to List of nontheists. So, that means the two terms are synonyms, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- And a quote from the article List of nontheists: 'The term atheist, in its broadest sense, is synonymous with nontheist.' . This whole situation is really embarrasing for the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no shortage of things that are mistaken across the Wiki. But WP:OTHERSTUFF is not relevant to this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I maintain that the statement 'The term atheist, in its broadest sense, is synonymous with nontheist' is true. The word "nontheism" is not in any reliable dictionary, so how can we know if an article named nontheism should be merged with atheism? The few (indirect) definitions we have of "nontheism" are very clear that it is a synonym of atheism. The discussion at List of atheists when it was re-named to List of nontheists shows that the change was made primarily because there are 2 or 3 definitions of "atheism" and that was causing confusion about which persons should be included in the list. So, the path of least resistance was taken: a very rare word, with no accepted definition, was adopted: "nontheists". Voila .. the handful of WP editors involved in the discussion were satifsfied, and so the change was made. And, thus, a handful of non-experts have introduced a new word into the most widely used encyclopedia in the world. The decision to give the imprimatur of WP to "nontheism" was not a deliberate decision based on sound reasoning, it was simply the choice that minimized dispute. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is a distinction to be made from atheism, Wikipedia is not the place to make it. From a search of Google News and Google for "nontheism," it seems that common linguistic usage is against this article's definition; I get the same impression from the dictionaries. WP:V and WP:NOR suggest that there would have to be some source that claimed that secular theology, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Hegelianism all shared something important called "nontheism" and distinct from "atheism" before there could be this article. WP:N and WP:UNDUE would set the bar higher, demanding that this thesis have been discussed and repeated. Instead, this seem to be a mixture of original research and a non-notable neologism. Renaming to "nontheistic religions" would not get around the verifiability, original research, and notability problems with this article. RJC TalkContribs 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While occurring in a reliable dictionary is usually sufficient to establish WP:N, not occurring is not a proof of the opposite. Between Google Scholar and Scirus, we have a clear case for inclusion. Where the specific content resides is a separate issue and should be hashed out at the respective talk pages. Paradoctor (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the uses of Nontheism in those places, the word is nearly synonymous with Atheism. The fact is, "nontheism" is a very, very minor word. Yet, the article List of Atheists was recently re-named to List of nontheists. How did that happen when the word Atheism is about 1000 times more important and more commonly used than Nontheism? I submit that this is simply a case of people being tired of an old word, and relishing in the novelty of a new word. The dictionaries do not define nontheism, but there are some definitions of "non-theism" as "the opposite of theism", and "theism" is "belief in god(s)"; so non-theism is the opposite of believing in gods - which is synonymous with atheism. I don't deny that the word "nontheism" is occasionally used; my point is that by giving so much emphasis to it in this prominent encyclopedia, we are changing the language. People may come to this encyclopedia looking for lists of athiests, and end up at "List of nontheists" and then start using the word "nontheist". This encyclopedia should merely document the world, not proactively change it. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your entire case rests on the Wikipedia usage of things. That is not how things are supposed to work at all.
A)The redirect from the list is not appropriate. There should either be a separate list, or the the atheist list should distinguish between atheist and nontheists.
B)The content of the nontheism article is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a notable, separate topic for wikipedia. It is, and the article can be improved.Greg Bard 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, we must look outside WP to see if "Nontheism" is notable or not. A couple of questions:
1) What definition of "nontheism" are you using when you determine that it is notable?
2) What is the source(s) of the definition?
3) Would you agree that many sources use "nontheism" synonymously with "atheism"?
4) When you say that "nontheism" is notable: which source are you relying on for its notability?
5) Do you have any secondary sources that discuss the philosophy/attitude/belief of nontheism?
--Noleander (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are all kinds of interpretations of things. The idea is to account for the prevailing interpreations so as not to be POV. The idea is not to identify one interpretation as the one interpretation and then run with it. Do some people use the terms synonymously? Oh yes, many many people do. In my opinion they have a simplified, fairly ignorant view (no slight intended, a person's ignorance isn't a blameful thing). People who distinguish between atheists and nontheists including 61+ Wikipedians are making an intellectual distinction. In this case it is a distinction about themselves which is important. It is basic respect to call someone what they want to be called. These people have conspicuously made the distinction, and so it is only right that we respect that... and yes there are plenty of primary and secondary sources which are consistent with that view. Greg Bard (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my questions. To determine notability, we dont look at the opinions of editors, we look at the outside sources, particularly secondary sources (that is, sources that analyze nontheism, rather than sources that merely use the term in passing). What are the sources that make you think "Nontheism" is notable? --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reminder: could one of the "keep" editors reply to the requests (above) and identify some sources that show how the topic of "nontheism" meets the WP:Notability requirement? Secondary sources which analyze the philosophy/belief of nontheism are preferred over primary sources that merely use the term. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like User:Gregbard notified the 60 or so users who listed themselves as "nontheists" in the Category Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Obviously, since those editors self-identified themselves as nontheists, they probably are supportive of the term "nontheism" and their input here would distort this discussion significantly. Quoting from the WP:canvassing policy: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways .... from user categorization). " A list of the editors notified is (from GregBard contrib history):
14:31, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Zeke73SG ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:31, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Yadyn ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Valich ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:UBX/Userboxes/Religion ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:TylerSci ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Tsunamishadow ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:The Chinchou ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Tanstaafl28 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Suto ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Suitov ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Strappado ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Silence ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Saukkomies/My userboxes ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Saimdusan ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:RasqualTwilight ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Oashi ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Niffweed17 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:NatureA16 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Myheartinchile ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:MorisSlo ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mikenassau ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Liwolf1 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Junh1024 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Janto ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jamdav86 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jambeeno ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:J Milburn ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:HoCkEy PUCK ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Helmandsare ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Hatsoff ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Full Shunyata ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:25, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:FisherQueen ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:25, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fingerz ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fahrenheit451 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Evertype ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diabloman ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Chickenmonkey ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Carolmooredc ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Callmeanxious ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Bullhaddha ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arzachel ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arenaaz ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Archiviveer ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Amon Koth ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:20, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Akyoyo94 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
    • Reply - I disagree that "[our] input would distort this discussion significantly." The manner in which we were informed of this discussion was incorrect, yes, but that does not detract from the validity of anything we may say.  Chickenmonkey  04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I also disagree that [our] imput would distort the discussion, especially my own. I personally called myself nontheist without clearly understanding the term. At the time (probably a year or so ago), I hadn't read the article on nontheism, and thought that the term meant "without an official religion", and not similar to atheism; however, I doubt that the opinions of nontheists in the discussion would distort it. If there would be a deletion discussion on Christianity (though I doubt there would be) would Christians have no valid say in the discussion? User talk:Liwolf1 - July 21, 2010 2:09 PM Eastern Time
  • moderate keep Personally, I have come to tend to see atheism and nontheism as quite different in the connotations they bring to mind, where atheism brings to mind a specific disbelief in the existence of a deity, whereas nontheism refers to a lack of any such belief -- in my mind, a subtle but nontrivial distinction, and so I disagree with Neolander's claim that "nontheism and atheism are essentially synonymous." However, those who argue that outside sources are necessary to validate this point are quite correct, and I don't know whether literature on philosophy is clear on this point. However, I would point out that wikipedia does already have a variety of somewhat esoteric philosophical points of view on the religious beliefs (e.g. apatheism, ignosticism, pantheism, antitheism, irreligion), all of which I think are perfectly reasonable and quite interesting bits of information to have on an encyclopedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot provide any sources to support the WP:Notability requirement, that means the article needs to be deleted or merged, I'm afraid. --Noleander (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user (Niffweed17) is a member of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians and was notified of this AfD by canvassing (see above). --Noleander (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nontheism is a construct encompassing atheism, antitheism, agnosticism, and any other instance where there is a lack of a god, or gods, as Nontheism is the lack of a god, or gods. One may lack god due to: a lack of belief in god, an opposition to god, a belief that one cannot know if a god exists, or some other reason. In my opinion, saying we should delete Nontheism in favor of keeping Atheism, Antitheism, and Agnosticism equates to saying we should delete Color in favor of keeping Red, Orange, Yellow, etc. It just doesn't make sense. Irreligion and Antireligion have nothing to do with Theism. Lastly, the fact that Nontheism and Atheism are often used interchangeably speaks further to my point. Agnosticism and Antitheism are also often used interchangeably with Nontheism, as all three (Atheism, Antitheism, and Agnosticism) are all recognizable as Nontheism.

Does this article need improvement? Yes, but Wikipedia is a work in progress.  Chickenmonkey  04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply any sources other than blogs and online newspaper articles? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you do realize how ridiculous that request is, right? You're implying that the sources I supplied are not reliable sources, correct? Could you explain to me why you find that to be the case (i.e. why are "online newspaper articles" unreliable)? Nevertheless, more sources have been supplied by JimWae.  Chickenmonkey  22:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that these sources do not unambiguously support the usage of "nontheist" used in the article and some outright contradict it. This and the fact that they are not talking about nontheism so much as using it in a sentence; we then need to interpret them to figure out the meaning, which means they don't count as reliable sources. For example, the first link (to Harvard law review) clearly uses atheist and nontheist interchangeably, when what is needed is a source that says they are different. The second one uses nontheist as a blanket term, "atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic Americans," which again is different from the sense indicated in the article. My question stands, where are the secondary sources that discuss nontheism as such and distinguish it from atheism in the way the article does, linking Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Hegelianism, and the like together as "nontheistic religions." Without such a source this article is original research. RJC TalkContribs 17:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point: This article certainly needs work, but that's no reason to delete it. If the article on Napoleon said he was seven feet tall, while we have sources that contradict that, would we delete Napoleon I? We wouldn't, of course.
To your second point: Looking at just the sources I've provided above (I've numbered them to make this simpler), source #1 does use Nontheist and Atheist somewhat interchangeably. This is because all Atheists are Nontheists, while all Nontheists are not all Atheists. Before you say this is original research (you would be correct to say that if I stopped here), source #2 provides proof of this (as do sources #3, #6, and #8). Sources #4, #5, #7, and #9 provide proof of the term's existence: yes, I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but as part of their reasoning for deletion the nom said "[...] and this encyclopedia should not be used as a platform to promote new words." These sources demonstrate that "nontheism" is not a new word -- in fact, source #9 is from 1963 (in a "real" newspaper).
This source, provided by JimWae below, makes a clear distinction between Atheism and Nontheism:

"Shortly after his conversion from Buddhism to Christianity, Buddhologist Paul Williams declared, 'All Buddhism is actually Atheism, whatever is said sometimes nowadays about its being agnostic.' However, contrary to this widespread classification, upon more careful examination, various Buddhist traditions appear to be nontheistic, polytheistic, and even monotheistic. Williams is correct, though, in refuting those who make the indefensible claim that Buddhism is agnostic."

Furthermore, the fact that books have been written discussing this topic (even though I haven't read them) would seem to indicate there are sources out there and, "an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." The article currently has 40 references listed. I have not read all of them, have you? If so, does the article currently contain information that is not contained in those 40 references? If it does, perhaps that specific information should be removed, but I see no reason for the article to be deleted.  Chickenmonkey  19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you name these books? I do not deny that there is a distinction between various ways of not believing in God and that it might be useful to call one set of beliefs atheism and the other nontheism, but I just don't see the secondary sources to back it up. The link you provide is not a book on this topic: it is a book on Buddhism and neuroscience in which the word has been used as an alternative to atheism. That would suffice for an addition line in the wiktionary entry, were your interpretation accurate (the book says that Williams was incorrect to say Buddhism is atheistic rather than agnostic because it can be nontheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic: nontheism and atheism are used interchangeably, the author claiming that Williams' view is too narrow. Buddhism can be nontheistic/atheistic, but it can also be mono- and poly-theistic). Where are the sources that discuss this distinction in depth rather than merely provide an example of usage? Articles that can be improved should not be deleted, but if the first step in improvement is to delete all of the current content and new content cannot be created without evading various content policies, deletion is the proper response. RJC TalkContribs 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that particular book was "on this topic"; I meant only that it draws a distinction between Atheism and Nontheism (which it does). As to what books are on this topic? Taking the simplest approach, a cursory search of Amazon.com yields a result of four books with "Nontheism" in the title, and there are likely multiple books on Theism, Pantheism, Atheism, Buddhism, etc., which discuss this topic. I believe a reasonable likelihood of source existence has been established, even if I myself cannot "name" them. Much of the current content is sourced (40 times). As I said, I have not read those sourcesHave you?, but I assume whoever added them did so in good faith.  Chickenmonkey  21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did my homework before deciding the article failed our inclusion guidelines. That is why I keep claiming this article's notability rests on WP:SYNTH. There are sources, just not sources that claim that these religions and philosophies are linked together in an interesting way, let alone that the interesting way in which they are linked also differs from atheism. To the main issue I have not seen any reliable sources. (It is a mistake to say all Buddhism is atheism; there are nontheistic, polytheistic, and even monotheistic Buddhist traditions—that sounds pretty much like a statement that uses atheist and nontheist interchangeably, and it would certainly be poor writing to communicate the fact that that "nontheist" includes "atheist" and that it is safe only to label some traditions "nontheist" without having already raised a stink about the two being different). RJC TalkContribs 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to infer that you didn't do your homework; if that's how it seemed, I apologize. I was just wondering if you had read all of the sources, as some of the sources are not available online. If this article has an issue with WP:SYNTH, then perhaps it should be rewritten; that's no case for deletion, however.
During the previous deletion nomination for this article, this source was offered. It shows the existence of books on this topic.
While consensus can change the previous nom made the same case that is being made by the current nom, and that previous discussion resulted in "keep". What new information is there that should cause this discussion to come to any other conclusion?
It is my belief that more than sufficient notability has been established.  Chickenmonkey  23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—Noleander's thesis that the term does not exist in major dictionaries is false. The OED gives non-theistic in citations from 1863, 1879, 1964, and 1991. The OED gives non-theist in citations as a noun from 1857, 1894, 1944, 1995, and citations as an adjective from 1913, 1941, 1969, and 1996. The argument that the specific nominal form non-theism has not yet entered dictionaries is unconvincing. Everyone knows that lexicography lags behind usage. Atheist, atheistic, atheism—Theist, theistic, theism, Non-theist, non-theistic, non-theism. This is normal word-productivity in English. The concept is certainly valid—and it is not equivalent to either atheism or to theism. On a personal note, I am a non-theistic Buddhist. I am not an atheistic Buddhist. And I know the difference. This article should not be merged with Atheism. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those definitions are with a hyphen, which is significantly different than the word without a hyphen, true? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Noleander, there is no difference between nontheist and non-theist or between nontheistic and non-theistic or between nontheism and non-theism. Compare nonbeliever and non-believer. Both are found. Indeed the OED's citations under non-theist give spellings with and without the hyphen. Seems to me that you are dredging the barrel for reasons to get us all to believe your thesis that non-theism is not a real term. I for my part do not believe it, and think that the evidence shows that you are quite wrong. -- Evertype·✆ 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Evertype above. It does appear in dictionaries, and as there is a distinction between it and atheism, it ought to stay. And as per  Chicken, yes, there is still work to be done on that article. (BTW: this editor has not been canvassed by the Gregster.) ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply some sources that discuss (as opposed to merely use) the term nontheism? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not relieve us of the obligation of finding sources to support WP:Notability requirement. WP is not a Dictionary (WP:Not a dictionary) .. just because the word "nontheism" is used by a few sources is not a justification for an entire article. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear enough: This comment was directed at the argument that nontheism does not appear in this or that reference work. We are so much bigger that this is not a valid argument, because it holds for the vast majority of our entries. Paradoctor (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan of those sources shows that the term is occasionally used, but not discussed in a way that would make it notable. Are there any sources that discuss "nontheism" in a way that demonstrates its Notability? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One person's quick scan may be different than anothers :-) In any case dictionary definitions as mentioned above, three or four longer WP:RS discussions and a bunch of mentions from other WP:RS seems to be more than enough to give the topic an article. The more problematic article is List_of_nontheists and the many linked pages with obvious synthesis from WP:RS. I have a feeling only a few of them actually have refs in which those people describe themselves as "nontheists" or are described as such and under WP:BLP they need more explicit refs. Feel free to deal with those and pressure the creator to do them the right way. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to strongly concur with Carol's statement "The more problematic article is List_of_nontheists''. I stumbled on that article after submitting this AfD. Whether or not this AfD succeeds or fails, we should re-consider the recent re-naming of List of Atheists to List of nontheists. There are hundreds of self-proclaimed atheists in that list, who find themselves under the "nontheist" rubric. Using a very rare word (nontheist) in lieu of a very common word (atheist) is unsatisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Naturalistic Pantheist, I identify strongly as a nontheist and not at all as an atheist. I believe that the Universe is God, but without humanoid personality, therefore not a theistic god. To me, an atheist is someone who believes there is no God whatsoever, not even willing to venerate the Universe as being greater than the sum of its parts. As a humanist and environmentalist, I feel much closer to altruistic theists such as Reform Jews, United Church of Christ, or Muslims for Progressive Values than I do with egoistic objectivists, who like the atheist label. Mike Nassau (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinions, but decisions in WP are not made due to the feelings of editors. Can you supply some sources that discuss "nontheism" and demonstrate its notability in accordance with WP:Notability? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED citations already show that the term exists, and of course it is notable. Quit while you're behind, why don't you? -- Evertype·✆ 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move for a speedy keep. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Not a notable term. There is no such distinction between it and atheism as you can see that atheism is also used with the meaning that is being given to nontheism. The reason for this term is some atheists wanting a way to be completely distinguished from religion. Just a section in atheism's article will do. You can see that this is the case just by noticing that must of the info in the nontheism's article is repeated from atheism. Thoraeton (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, prefer Merge. I can see that this is a useful term to have, but I'm not sure it's yet a sufficiently notable one. Most of the sources that use it seem to do so essentially as a synonym for atheism; there are few that distinguish between 'atheism' and 'nontheism'. If a term hasn't received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, we shouldn't have an article on it, no matter how useful it might be. Perhaps this should be merged into Atheism, irreligion, or even theism. (For what it's worth, I am an atheist myself - and, according to this article, a nontheist - but I wasn't brought to this AFD by canvassing.) Robofish (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On further thought, considering the actual content of the article, the best place to merge it might be Atheism and religion. Robofish (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The OED gives citations for this going back to 1857. Leave it where it is and let the community improve the article. -- Evertype·✆ 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This article definately has merit and potental but needs some work. Not totally clear the difference as compared to atheism. I think that has been the subject of much of the above debate. I have nothing to add to that debate, just wanted to voice my opinion that this material clearly does not deserve to be deleted. It should either be merged with atheism or kept as is with improved editing. WRFEC (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm confused I've looked at the redirects that took place in 2008. If they were correct, then nontheism is the same as atheism and we shouldn't have separate articles. In any case, does anyone here seriously agree that 'lists of atheists' should be 'lists of nontheists'? If we are having a hard time distinguishing between atheism and nontheism, then nontheism, which is not exactly at the tip of most people's tongues, should simply be part of an article on atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Ok, I've looked around more. It is definitely not in my 2000+ pages Oxford Dictionary of English. The argument that dictionaries lag behind doesn't cut the mustard. That the word is used, I agree, Charles Beard considers himself a nontheist. But we shouldn't be in the forefront of word-making and it shouldn't have its own article. I looked through the 'lists of nontheists' just now, and Beard is the only one I can find that self-identifies as a nontheist, the redirect is clearly wrong. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above The more problematic article is List_of_nontheists and the many linked pages with obvious synthesis from WP:RS. I have a feeling only a few of them actually have refs in which those people describe themselves as "nontheists" or are described as such and under WP:BLP they need more explicit refs. Feel free to deal with those and pressure the creator to do them the right way. Please do not use the problems with another article to condemn this one. Of course, it would be nice if someone would got through and get rid of all the WP:OR and use some of the excellent sources mentioned below or available through various book/scholar and other internet searches. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Although the word Nontheism is not used in the OED, the concept is referred to. It defines the adjective 'non-theistic' as 'Not having or involving a belief in God, esp. as a being who reveals himself to humanity' and also defines the noun 'non-theist' who is 'a person who is not a theist.' These two definitions are subtly different. The first has it's origins in the 19c, and the idea is virtually synonymous with atheism. The second definition leaves room for less binary standpoints, which might account for why the idea has been adopted for use in religious studies. Nontheism in religious studies refers to religious and spiritual systems that hold a theistic deity is (at least) a relative concept, while retaining a notion of 'the divine' or some system we might term religious or spiritual. A good introduction to the notion of can be found in Nontheistic conceptions of the divine by Paul J Griffiths Chapter 3 in The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion Ed. William J. Wainwright. You can also find the idea used in Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity by Michael P. Levine. Also, as well as the documents below, a simple Google books search will return 'non-theistic' and 'non-theism' used by a variety of scholars, notably Ninian Smart (a pioneer in the field of RS, according to Wikipedia). Allen Ginsberg referred to himself as a nontheist Buddhist. Smart said he'd never met anyone who has called themselves a pantheist (although various world views might be classified as such), likewise we might say that we'll never meet a nontheist, but only someone who holds nontheistic beliefs of one sort or another.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of sources discussing this, so forget dictionaries. And it's not the same are irreligion or atheism. Buddhists particularly identify as non-theists. Just a couple of sources:[1][2]. Fences&Windows 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a notable distinction between nontheism and atheism. The difference between the two may be (in my personal opinion, without fact or sources) comparable to the difference between Theism and Religion. So should the Theism article be deleted or merged into the Religion one? User talk:Liwolf1 July 21, 2010, 2:14 PM Eastern Time
  • Keep. The adjective "nontheistic" is often used to describe God-concepts that do not fit traditional definitions of God as a divine supernatural being. For example, John Shelby Spong uses this adjective in Why Christianity Must Change or Die starting in Chapter 4 Beyond Theism to New God Images in the top paragraph on p. 57: "Perhaps we can cast the Christian experience in nontheistic [God] images." This chapter is aptly preceded by a Chapter 3 titled In Search of God: Is Atheism the Only Alternative to Theism?. So obviously he intends for the two words to mean different things. Clan-destine (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources indicating currency of term
Journals
Books
More

--JimWae (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a long reply with a conclusion of Rename, Merge, or the alternate of Strong Delete with no acceptable solution. I would hope that;
  • #1)- All those that were "recruited" or otherwise informed of this discussion, with a direct agenda to see a keep vote, exempt themselves without a ban being requested. I am sure the keep or delete decision will exclude these comments anyway. It would be interesting to see how many of these recipients replied with a note that this was not per Wikipedia policy; the policy on canvassing, specifically votestacking. -from User:Gregbard. Asking input would be one thing but there can be no doubt this was a Wikipedia violation and members even acknowledge this per discussions above.
  • #2)- I would like to respectfully ask Noleander to take a breather for a short period. This is so others can dig through this and make sense of things without the repeated responses.
  • On a list submitted by chickenmonkey #5 gave reference that appeared the word nontheism was a misspelling (without the dash) by using non-theism.
  • A second link did not mention nontheism either but referred to, "The terms humanism, atheism, agnosticism, freethinking, rationalism and non-theism", [3].
  • A third link was to a discussion board and I could not discover what they believe, [4]. It was listed as an article but did use the word nontheist.
  • A fourth was a Wikipedia site Nontheist Friend and I would have to check the author and date it was set up.
  • A fifth was what appeared to be a reliable press release but was not, [5]. It was apparently an article by the organization to be released and no proof it was. Just the ones that I checked showed WP:Syn; "This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is... WP:OR", Also, WP:Sources states "Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.", and the above examples do not follow this.
  • #3)- I would like to ask an administrator to monitor this situation if this is possible.
Exploring nontheism or nontheist as a word, if a group of people is simply starting a new word, or if it is a misspelling or omission, which doesn't make it a "word". Just because a word has been used and has some recognition does not actually mean it is a word. It may become one or actually may not. Dictionary.com list a coined word, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious: "Used as a nonsense word by children to express approval or to represent the longest word in English." Several dictionaries I checked (including Merriam-Webster) either didn't list the word or gave similar results as Dictionary.com. Wikipedia listed it as an English word with 34 letters. Another word that is listed in several dictionaries; Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, also a coined (technical) word, listed in Wikipedia; "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "a factitious word", so does not appear to be a word. The Wikipedia article, Longest word in English, does list it as a word though. This gives us a non-word (maybe nonword is acceptable) "word". My point is that the title is not a commonly accepted "word" so a commonly accepted word should be used and delve into "Nontheists" in the article with references.
So do we have a word? What about the absence in dictionaries per WP:N? It is a word just with a hyphen so does that make it alright to leave out the hyphen? If it is actually not a word but has been used on several occasions can we just leave it in Wikipedia, thus assuredly making it a word? In the second sentence of the lead of Nontheism the words, "Non-theism has various types." does give the accepted spelling. There apparently is no difference between atheism and Non-theism but now we have a solid known word that has been re-directed to a word that is in question. Anyone here knows that is improper. Now that the cat is out of the bag that should be changed back.

Finally, I looked into the Psychology of Atheism, Theism, Non-theism, and Nontheism. Of course being a supposedly new "word" there is nothing I could find on "Nontheism". There was mention on Urban Diction (yea I know) and a supposed discussion between a Theist and a "Nontheist". The results looked to go against the Theist but was also a good argument against the word "Nontheist", bringing into question (brought up by the "Nontheist) the Invisible Pink Unicorn and possibility of being the one responsible for the new word.

So far what I looked at proved "Nontheism, Nontheist" to be a non-word or misspellings of current words in use. There is evidence of attempts that Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle (and driven quite well) to create a new word as well as others. Part of this evidence is the re-direct from List of Atheists to List of nontheists which states in the lead "Nontheists, or non-theists...", Nontheist Friends, and any others (a list of 17 now using "Nontheists) on Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:WikiAtheism. It would be sad if there is a group of individuals seeking to turn Wikipedia into a "Nontheist" encyclopedia. In good faith I hope not.

In conclusion and with sound reasoning: When the "word" becomes a sourced word with a definition per WP:N, and as a "word" should be locatable and definable), then change is possible. Considering this there should be a RENAME (maybe Non-theism), the information merged per other suggestions, or the article by this name deleted. I would think there would be a problem, absent proof of existence, with the suggestion, "Nontheistic religions", again because of the purported non-word. I also, in light of what I have seen, feel sanctions should be explored. If Wikipedia is to begin being an avenue for new words there should be a new category for community consideration New word consideration list. That is a joke but is exactly what is going on now. Of course "this encyclopedia should not be used as a platform to promote new words", is argumentative using "should", and I hope not moving in that direction. An easy solution would be to rename using the hyphen thus the accepted spelling then go from there. Easy never seems to be the path taken. The title also appears to be a Wikipedia violation per Wikipedia:CONPOL; Article titles: "The ideal title for a Wikipedia article is recognizable to English speakers, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent with other titles"; also, Naming conventions (use English): "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as found in reliable sources. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." I would hate to vote delete on all points but if there is no other solution that would be my opinion. Otr500 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I respectfully decline your invitation to "exempt" myself from this discussion. There are no grounds for any sort of "ban", either (It's not polite to make threats). User:Gregbard improperly canvassed, yes; no one can deny that, nor is anyone denying it. As this is not a vote, but instead is a discussion. It doesn't matter how many !votes are tallied. What matters is the merit of what is said. In saying this, anyone who chooses to "exclude these comments anyway", while closing this discussion, should not be closing discussions; they are doing it wrong. I assume whomever does end up closing this discussion will not exclude any civil comments.
    • I also find it amusing that you asked me (indirectly) to "exempt" myself, but then you proceeded to engage me (also indirectly) in discussion.
    • Anyway, a rename would be acceptable, however unnecessary. "Non-theism" and "nontheism", I believe, are no more different from each other than "color" and "colour"; they're different spellings of the same word. That being said, after all of that, you appear to be in favor of keeping, if the article is renamed.
    • List of nontheists has nothing to do with this discussion -- as far as its renaming, that is.
  • Very Weak Keep; word is not in OED (but that is no biggie really) and is a marginal/little used term, the article is a mess and needs substantial work. But it seems reasonable to record the general area and with work the article could do that. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another indication of the sillyness of this article is the change made to it today, where the OED definition of the related term "non-theist" was changed in the article from "not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity" to "A person who is not a theist". I don't have an OED with me, but the fact that we can't get a solid definition of a related word is telling. (No editor has suggested that the OED includes "nontheism" or "non-theism"). I repeat my assertion that "non-theism" and "nontheism" are exceedingly rare words which are simply synonyms of one of the meanings of "atheism". --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: That is the definition in my 2010 OED (CD), 2009 OED (print) and on OED Online. So I corrected it. There is categorically no word nontheism/non-theism in the OED. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is notable in that it is technically distinct from Atheism, which is itself notable as a well-heard-of but still not mainstream philosophy. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I have already not-voted Keep above I can't believe this little witch-hunt is still going on. There is abundant evidence that the term exists (along with related terms nontheist and nontheistic. Tmorton166's comment above is false. "There is categorically no word nontheism/non-theism in the OED" seems to misuse the term "categorically". There is at present no such headword, but please see my comments above. Regarding the suggestion that it was inappropriate to "canvass" for example my opinion because of a badge I have on my user page, it seems unlikely that anything but expert opinion would be brought to the debate. For my part I would recommend a keep and that an admin bring this argument to a close. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; categorically was simply used to stress it really is not in the dictionary :) it's not on the pending list either as far as I can find out. I imagine if the term enters widespread EL usage it will come in. I don't necessairily see a lack of a dictionary entry as a problem though --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a merge and redirect to atheist#atheist religions.
    • comment There is no word nontheist defined in my copies of published dictionaries, nontheist is the same meaning as atheist and lastly atheism does not preclude being part of a religion that has no god. It is a problem as the "list of nontheists" which was moved from "list of atheists" is also in need of looking at. How many of those peopls called themselves "nontheist" and how many called themselves "atheist"? If the answer is simply a move by some wikipedian "philosophers" to fork out a new term then this page and the list page should be dealt with.
      • Nontheism "Nontheism is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods."
      • Atheism "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
    • These two definitions are the same thing. It is akin to having a page for "Automobile" and one for "Car" Chaosdruid (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Some people seem not to understand what a dictionary is, or what productivity in language is. I will repeat what I said above. Noleander's thesis that the term does not exist in major dictionaries is false. The OED gives non-theistic in citations from 1863, 1879, 1964, and 1991. The OED gives non-theist in citations as a noun from 1857, 1894, 1944, 1995, and citations as an adjective from 1913, 1941, 1969, and 1996. The argument that the specific nominal form non-theism has not yet entered dictionaries is unconvincing. Everyone knows that lexicography lags behind usage. Atheist, atheistic, atheism—Theist, theistic, theism, Non-theist, non-theistic, non-theism. This is normal word-productivity in English. The concept is certainly valid—and it is not equivalent to either atheism or to theism. On a personal note, I am a non-theistic Buddhist. I am not an atheistic Buddhist. And I know the difference. This article should not be merged with Atheism. -- Evertype·✆ 14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype: What is the difference between "nontheism" and "atheism" (specifically "negative atheism" as defined in Negative and positive atheism)? --14:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noleander (talk • contribs)
Personal knowledge is not a reliable source. If I think that a particular religion has overlooked an important distinction, I cannot introduce that distinction into Wikipedia. Others may have already drawn that distinction using different terms, for example. What remains of the article once it is trimmed of original research is discussed elsewhere. RJC TalkContribs 14:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh? Do not understand what a dictionary is? lol, I have in front of me the Shorter OED in two volumes (tot 2,672 A4 pages)
"Theism - a. gen. Belief in a deity or deities, as opp. to atheism. b. Belief in one god, as opp. to polytheism or pantheism." - please explain why this should prevent nontheism redirecting to atheism ? Chaosdruid (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows that lexicography lags behind usage., true, but I am not sure you quite understand the workings/evolution of dictionary English. It is not guaranteed by precedent that the word will enter the dictionary - only by assertion of use. While "little a" atheism is the same as nontheism (use just depends on which word is preffered) because we do not have a dictionary definition or meaningful citations asserting on it's definition then we cannot really be to specific, here, about what it is. By the way it is worth pointing out that atheism is a collective term for people w/o theistic belief - non-theistic describes someone with that belief. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for as exempting yourself that is your option at this point. As far as a ban (or block), reference to threats, reference to "not a vote", and reference as to the responsibility of the closing administrator:
When there are possible violations I feel there is a mandate to bring this to light. This was done at the top of the discussion by the notification of one party of interest in clear violation of Votestacking. This can be seen as as serious violation that can lead to a block or ban. assuming good faith was at the least impugned and editors have agreed that it is improper. The point at which it becomes only a violation against the offending party is of course surpassed with proof from the further comments. Most Wikipedia policies advocate being bold but I assure anyone on here that for clear violations, especially against policies that use the words "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." per Wikipedia: Disruptive editing, and bringing possible violations to light is not being a bully. This type of activity is "not" being Bold as can show evidence of tendentious editing. Evidence of improprieties have been noted and even agreed to so continued participation of any involved would depend on that persons boldness, but may be arguments that they are right regardless, and can be #Characteristics of problem editors.
Wikipedia policy concerning the words "vote". WP does refer to Votestacking. I present that when editors weigh in on an article, with constructive reasoning the information is counted on the merit , it could be inferred to be taken as a vote. Considering this I will concede that a proposed name change from votestacking might be warranted for clarity.
I have an opinion that an administrator will certainly exclude tainted comments so I disagree with your comment that an administrator that thought thus would be wrong and also find it amusing that you consider such a person should not perform the task.
I am glad I was able to amuse someone. I have been amused to physical laughter concerning a couple of your comments. The comments you presented and I referred to obviously involve your name and your comment. ----Sorry I had to stop and laugh----If that is your definition of "indirectly engaging you".
The list of "nontheists" may be very related to this discussion. You submitted the words "conspiracy theory" as being mine and I had not even entertained the words. I did state, " It would be sad if there is a group of individuals seeking to turn Wikipedia into a "Nontheist" encyclopedia. In good faith I hope not." The part I failed to consider, but a can of worms you have opened, is if the group I referred to (editors) is actually working together. At this point I had not even considered if the some 17 ( I did not recount to verify) articles are in fact contributed by individuals on the above list. I was just referring to the fact that there were many articles using variations of "nontheism". Other editors might have read the name and by propagation began to be used. You choose to assume (possibly lacking a minute amount of good faith) that I was trying to forward a notion I in fact had not. However, reading comments like, "I can't believe this little witch-hunt is still going on.". Prima facie this could be taken to mean, that the certainly important AfD discussion is a witch-hunt, that there are editors on such a "witch-hunt", or that there is an agenda against a supposed good cause. This is a sad accusation against many editors. What is strange, after such a statement, is, "it seems unlikely that anything but expert opinion would be brought to the debate.", followed by, "I would recommend a keep and that an admin bring this argument to a close." Maybe it is just me but these comments are disturbing. I could write a few paragraphs on the reasoning but the statements are self-explanatory. It seems irrelevant how far "lexicography lags behind usage" advancing "assertion of use" through Wikipedia is not acceptable.
I was one of the ones that was not against a rename or merge but now must consider that I was mistaken and will have to invest some time to see if a delete is the direction I am leaning. I came to this page because the name of the title caught my eye. I was not familiar with the term "nontheism (or the variations) so looked at it. Wikipedia is a number one return on a search. I use Wikipedia for reference and search. Wikipedia is not (certainly as I am to understand) a dictionary. This means that no matter how noble the cause, or how right it might or could be, no matter how passionate the interested parties are, or no matter how much some might wish it, there are problems. This is the wrong venue for the action to attempt to create a new word. It is equally a problem to use redirects to change words or meanings (and to revert a good faith edit), and it is wrong on so many levels to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to assist in creating new words, to create new meanings, to fit a particular thought or belief.

I am inclined now, since an esteemed colleague brought a possible theory to my attention, to look at this (and the like named associated articles) and study policies and possible recourse if it appears to be justified. Otr500 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, when improper canvassing takes place, it should be noted and the editor at fault should be made aware of their error (as I chose to do here when Gregbard first informed me of this discussion, on my talk page). That, however, does not mean anyone who was informed improperly has any less of a right to discuss a topic. As I assume you've noticed, at the top of this page, there is a notice ({{Afdnewbies}}) to inform those who were improperly canvassed that simply !voting will not suffice; they must substantiate their comments if they wish to be taken seriously. That's how this works, after all. Yes, I believe an administrator excluding legitimate comments because they are tainted should not be closing discussions. Legitimate comments, even from those unwittingly involved in a policy violation, should be taken into equal consideration.
In regards to wikibullying: you did ostensibly make a "no-edit" order to those of us "recruited" here and made reference to a nonexistent, possible "ban". That's just not very nice; that's all.
Yes, what you did is my definition of "indirectly engaging" me. I didn't mean it as a negative thing; it's just what you did. You mentioned me, and my comments, but you didn't direct the mention to me; that's indirectly engaging me.
I apologize for using the phrase "conspiracy theory", it just seemed to fit. With all due respect, I didn't "assume" anything you didn't say. You said "[...]a group of individuals[...]" and I said I am not a part of any such "group".
I apologize, once more, for being "amused"; I didn't mean for the term to be taken any other way than literally. The situation did amuse me, as you had -- seemingly unwittingly -- asked me to exempt myself and engaged me at the same time. That amused me; it was merely an observation.
Quite frankly, I am not passionate about "nontheism", at all. Simply, in my opinion, there doesn't seem to be any reason to delete this article. I believe, as I said earlier, sufficient notability and a reasonable likelihood of source existence have been established. It's up to the closer of this discussion to decide, now (that is, if my comments aren't disappearedhumor).
A cursory look at my contributions will reveal that I am not a disruptive editor (as I also assume you are not); however, as we've wandered so far off-topic I wouldn't be surprised if we happen upon a gingerbread house, I believe further engaging you would, in actuality, amount to disruptive editing on my part. Therefore, I will not do so.  Chickenmonkey  07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All atheists (and perhaps agnostics) are nontheists, but not all nontheists choose to call themselves atheists, due to the pejorative associations that commonly attach to the expression. It is unlikely, however, that an atheist would object strenuously at being described as a nontheist. Nihil novi (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism&oldid=1080470977"