Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnostic atheism

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 of the debate was keep, very long discussion but the vast majority of opinions are for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic atheism

Neologism. Delete per WP:NOR. -- noosphere 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there is Strong atheism Weak atheism strong agnostic weak agnostic and well, this another of a long list. Quick googling finds enough usage and one source and a handful of books. Kotepho 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just because there are articles on other terms qualifying the words "atheist" and "agnostic" doesn't mean "agnostic atheism" is anything more than a neologism. (There might be grounds for AfDing those other articles for similar reasons, by the way). Second, the first link you cite states "agnostic atheism" is synonymous with "weak atheism", which would be grounds for merging the two articles. Looking through the sources on your second link shows that there is no consistent usage of this term. It really does seem like a neologism that people make up to fit whatever theory they seem to be pursuing at the time. If the article itself was better sourced as to where they got their information from I'd have less issues with it, but as it stands it's still original research. -- noosphere 02:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then pick some definitions (out of a hat for all I care) and cite them. WP:OR problem solved. Kotepho 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's assuming there's anything notable worth citing. -- noosphere 06:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Weak atheism. The article claims a distinction on the basis of "beliefs" vs. "knowledge (or any claim of knowledge)", which are identical when it comes to the supernatural. GT 06:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment How can any of this be merged since it's all original research? Any original research added to the Weak atheism article would be in violation of WP:NOR. -- noosphere 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment My suggestion would be to copy the article text to Talk:Weak atheism with an invitation to add some or all of the information if/when any valid sources for it are located. GT 08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think that's reasonable. -- noosphere 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, from [1]: "agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism." -- Jeandré, 2006-04-17t19:09z
  • Comment Their definition of agnostic atheism is identical to Weak atheism. Hence, merge them. GT 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Jeandré, your point seems to be that the term "agnostic atheism" is used outside Wikipedia. I am aware of this. However, it still seems to be a neologism for several reasons. First, it's not in any dictionary I'm aware of (apart from online dictionaries that use Wikipedia as their source). Second, the outside sources that do use the term "agnostic atheism" do not say where they got it, so that makes me suspect they just coined it; a suspicion that is confirmed by the relatively few hits this term gets. Searching google for "atheism -wikipedia" returns over 9 million hits, "agnosticism -wikipedia" returns almost 2.5 million hits, while ""agnostic atheism" -wikipedia" returns only about 12 thousand hits. Third, the term is used inconsistently: in this article one of the doctrines of "agnostic atheism" is supposedly that "knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant or unimportant" while the article you quote says nothing of the sort. Finally, and most importantly, this article is completely unsourced. Where did they get these definitions? Beats me, because there isn't a single reference. As such, it violates WP:NOR and should be deleted accordingly (though copying it to the "weak atheism" talk page before deletion is also acceptable). -- noosphere 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an established term which appeared in print at least 25 years ago and is widely used together with weak and strong atheism. As regards its Google standing, I note that weak atheism returns only 13,700 hits while strong atheism returns 20,100; these aren't exactly Britney-levels of interest but that doesn't make them invalid. If the article is poor, the solution is to improve it, not delete it. Vashti 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" are also neologisms, but let's take one neologism at a time. Anyway, whether or not this particular neologism has appeared in print "at least 25 years ago" (can you provide a reference for that, by the way?), the fact is that that says nothing about this article's violation of WP:NOR. If at some point someone creates an article on this topic that does not violate Wikipedia policy then there'll be no reason to delete it. Until then... -- noosphere 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Sue Townsend had her character Adrian Mole describe himself as an "agnostic atheist" in 1982, in "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole". The first Google groups hit for "agnostic atheism" is this alt.atheism post from 1991 - they've been discussing "agnostic atheism" for *fifteen years*. Now those are not valid sources in themselves, but combined with the detailed outside sources you dismissed above, which do use and define the term, it certainly starts to look less and less like a neologism. Vashti 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still original research, as there are no cited source, and therefore should be deleted as per WP:NOR. And there's still no consitent use of the term that the article reflects as I discussed above in my response to Jeandré. -- noosphere 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Referring you to Kotepho below. Vashti 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...We might as well define "agnostic" while we're at it, since there is a similar division of usage. I call a "soft agnostic" one who says: "I don't know whether there is a God or not." A "hard agnostic" is one who says: "The proposition `There is a God' is undecidable." Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), the great 19th-century freethought orator, took the hard agnostic position when he said: "The Agnostic does not simply say, `I do not know.' He goes another step and says with great emphasis that you do not know." George H. Smith uses the term "agnostic atheist" for this position. He uses the term "agnostic theist" for a person who "believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable."

Yet another position, taken by Alfred Jules Ayer (author of LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, copyright 1936) and many skeptics, is: "The statement `There is a God' doesn't make sense, since the term `God' is undefined or incoherent." Such people do not call themselves agnostics, since they clarify the definition of the hard agnostic given above by expanding it to "The proposition `There is a God' is significant and it is neither true nor false: it is undecidable."...

Title: Atheism 101 Source: Truth Seeker Author: William B. Lindley Publication Date: 1994 Page Number: 33-34 Database: SIRS Renaissance Service: SIRS Knowledge Source <http://www.sirs.com>

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
The Encyclopedia of Unbelief by Dr. Gordon Stein
Kotepho 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's also A Short History of Freethought by J.M. Robertson, published in 1915, and quoting an earlier work on Buddhism: "Agnostic atheism ... is the characteristic of his [Buddha's] system of philosophy." So we have established prior use and published works more than ten years old that define the term in the same way the article does. There's no way this is a neologism. Vashti 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But since the article lacks references supporting its claims as to what agnostic atheism means it still qualifies for deletion under WP:NOR. -- noosphere 20:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's unsourced, like thousands of other articles. It certainly isn't unverifiable. Quoting Wikipedia:Deletion: "Problems that may not require deletion: ... Can't verify information in article: Follow the procedure on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If that doesn't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." WP:V says: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}.". Personally, I'd list it for (a lot of) cleanup. Vashti 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Answering this to your repeated comment below... -- noosphere 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps this might have been better as a {{prod}} candidate. David | Talk 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Deleting this article would certainly set a dangerous precedent for the continuity of philosophical articles since all philosophy is original "research". Using the criterion at WP:NOR, we could legitimately strip most religious articles since much of the information in those articles originate from disreputable sources, such as The Holy Bible which has been translated innumerable times by only God knows how many people. Should we limit such religious articles to only discussions occurring in academic journals? I've seen some really crazy flame wars in academic journals. They're not exactly the pinnacles of authority.

  The compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary operate a sensible criterion for deciding whether a new word shall be canonised by inclusion. The aspirant word must be commonly used without needing to be defined and without its coinage being attributed whenever it is used. — Richard Dawkins in the foreword to The Meme Machine written by Susan Blackmore.

  I'm not an expert on determining the spread of a word; however, I think this is certainly something worth looking into. The article religiopoiesis continues to exist despite having a measly 10 results in AltaVista whereas the article agnostic atheism is under fire with 1,800 results. Boolean searches were conducted to strip results that mentioned "Wikipedia". You cannot find some terms and subjects through any search engine or in any dictionary. Knowledge of these subjects and words would necessitate access to private libraries or subscriptions to extremely expensive academic journals. Esoteric subjects are inherently noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion. The appearance of a deficiency of information about a subject should prompt further inquiry about the subject instead of blunt opposition to the subject's inclusion.

  Encarta apparently has a premium article that mentions "agnostic atheism". The content is here and was reportedly contributed by Dr. Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University.

I wonder how you would fare attempting to remove content from popular religious articles, such as God and Christianity, citing the WP:NOR. That would be an interesting experiment, indeed. Adraeus 11:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my objection. Wikipedia has clear clear policies and guidelines for what makes for original research (WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V). The fact is that this article has zero references. WP:NOR clearly states "It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." Yet there are no cited sources. There have been sources cited in this AfD, but they are not integrated in to the article, so the specific claims of the article are not sourced. As such, it constitutes original research. -- noosphere 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're still pushing for this article to be deleted, rather than simply adding {{unsourced}} to it, as policy suggests, and leaving it to get the serious improvement that I think we can all agree it needs? Vashti 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which policy suggests adding the unsourced tag? WP:GD says "text that does not conform to any one of the remaining three policies [including WP:NOR], however, is usually removed from Wikipedia" -- noosphere 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeating my earlier comment:

It's not OR, it's unsourced, like thousands of other articles. It certainly isn't unverifiable. Quoting Wikipedia:Deletion: "Problems that may not require deletion: ... Can't verify information in article: Follow the procedure on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If that doesn't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." WP:V says: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}.". Personally, I'd list it for (a lot of) cleanup. Vashti 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR considers as original research edits that (among other things) "define new terms" or "provides new definitions of pre-existing terms". We've established that this is, after all, not a new term. However, without sources the article looks like a new definition of an existing term to me. For all I know someone did make this whole thing up. As I asked earlier, where did whoever wrote that article get his definitions? It's impossible to tell without sources. And the article is unverifiable, since there are no sources cited to verify. As for your suggestion regarding the tags, I shall add them presently. -- noosphere 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because the article is unsourced doesn't make it a fabrication! If apple pie didn't quote its sources, nobody would say that it was actually describing peach pie, just because of that. Assuming that the things in the article *are* facts, it's possible to find supporting sources which support the article and add them in. If they aren't facts, then it can be rewritten based on sources, or based on the existing material. Regardless of any of this, if the topic is valid we should improve, not delete. Sourcing unsourced claims is certainly improvement. Vashti 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that one can not verify the source of the statements in that article if those sources are not cited. And, as you said, unverifiability makes this article subject to deletion. WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic," while WP:CITE says "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." -- noosphere 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think unverifiability means what you think it means, and your original accusations of original research and neologism have been shown to be false. You're now arguing for no other reason than to argue. Please let it go and stop trolling. —Pengo 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AGF please. I am neither trolling nor arguing just to argue. If I wanted to troll I wouldn't address any of the points raised here, and yet I have, and at length. If I was arguing just to argue I'd still be arguing that agnostic atheism is a neologism, but I've conceded that there's a previous history of use of that term. It has not, however, been proven that this is more than original research. For that the claims in that article would have to have citations, but they don't. And if you disagree with my understanding of unverifiability I would appreciate it if you would tell me why. Also, it's curious that you link to a wiktionary definition of unverifiability, but it doesn't exist. -- noosphere 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[crazy indenting, let's start over]

But your own quotes disprove what you're saying, noosphere. "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic" doesn't mean that an article with no sources listed can be removed, it means that an article for which no sources can be found should be removed. It's not talking about the article, it's talking about the topic, the subject itself. Like saying "we all know Tony Blair is a reptile, but the reputable sources won't print it" - there are no reputable sources for that and it doesn't merit inclusion as fact. We've provided you with several reputable sources, but this is not enough. As for "material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor, I've never thought that was about deleting articles, but about removing material from articles. Read for context. I've already shown you the recommendation to add {{unsourced}} to unsourced articles from WP:V; how about these quotes from WP:CITE.

• "You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia." - this directly contradicts your claim that nobody can prove what the original author was thinking; facts don't need telepathic verification.
• "Disputed text can immediately be removed entirely or moved from the article to the talk page for discussion. If the disputed text is harmless, and you simply feel a citation is appropriate, place {{fact}} (or {{citation needed}}) after the text." - again, improve, don't delete.
• Where I think you may have got mixed up a little: "Unsourced criticism or negative material in the biographies of living persons should be removed immediately, and not moved to talk. - this article is not a biography of a a living person.

You're insisting on using the AfD hammer where the discussion nail is more appropriate. Vashti 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mere pedantry. I recently added a bibliography to the article, which satisfies your criteria. Note that article was originally split from atheism due to editorial concerns that there existed sufficient information for separation. Note the bibliography there. Also, please do not presume other editors to be unaware of the workings of Wikipedia. I guarantee you that your assumptions are incredibly incorrect. Adraeus 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you tell me which of my assumptions you believe is incorrect and why you believe them to be incorrect perhaps you can help me avoid similar errors in the future. -- noosphere 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I did not address your complaint. You assumed I misunderstood.

Your not addressing what I said is evidence of your having misunderstood me. Since there was evidence of a misunderstanding, then I did not make an assumption but an inference from the available evidence when I stated that I believed you misunderstood me. Now, if you'd come out and told me that you were intentionally ignoring what I'd said, I'd have no reason to think you'd misunderstood when you didn't address what I said. -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

2. I referenced WP:NOR twice. You presumed I was not aware, and thus wrote concerning the existence of Wikipedia policies.

I did not presume you were unaware of them. I just referenced those policies to support my statements. -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yet you've referenced those "policies" how many times in this discussion? Did you really see a need to link those pages again? You also wrote "clear clear" as though you were lecturing. Doubling words has a literary effect. Perhaps a typo? Or perhaps intended? Either way, doubling words can be interpreted as hot-headedness. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You took exception to my doubling a word? That was an obvious typo. And if you suspected it of being a typo you could have at least asked me if it was instead of assuming it meant I was lecturing or being "hotheaded". And as to me linking those policies again... Why not? In case you haven't noticed, I always link the policies I refer to in my discourse. It's just a habit. -- noosphere 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Habits can be unhealthy... gambling, Wikipedia, etc. ;) Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While others can be healthy... exercise. What are we to take from this? Only that you didn't like it that I linked to policies and guidelines when I referred to them, while I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, it may be handy for people reading this discussion to click on the link and refresh their memory of what the policy says, or match what it says against what I quoted. -- noosphere 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

3. The article references atheism and agnosticism, which are obviously parent subjects. You claimed the article had no references.

Since you are so well versed with Wikipedia perhaps you've noted that WP:CITE says, in bold, "Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources." -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And they weren't used as sources. I said they were references, not bibliographic sources. Semantics. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If they weren't sources then this article is still in violation of WP:NOR. The claims in that article need to be properly sourced. -- noosphere 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The references exist. The citation is simply incomplete. The article does not violate WP:NOR. The article simply needs more complete citation. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not citations at all. They're simply a list of books at the end of the article. You've already admitted they weren't sources. -- noosphere 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Sources are cited in atheism from which the article was split. You claimed there were no cited sources.

This is completely irrelevant. We're talking about the "Agnostic atheism" article, not its "parents". -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was split from atheism. The parent topics are certainly relevant. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Those articles may be relevant to the topic, but they irrelevant as far as meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines for this article. Please show me a single policy or guideline that says a Wikipedia article which is linked to in a given article, or from which which an article "descended" can qualify as a valid source for the article in question. -- noosphere 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you spend more time browsing Wikipedia than attempting to delete articles. There are many, many articles that have branched into separate articles. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you propose a policy that grants articles derived from other articles an exemption from having to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Because until such a policy exists AfD is where articles violating Wikipedia policies belong. -- noosphere 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

5. WP:GD is not considered official policy. You claimed in context (although perhaps a logical fallacy) that WP:GD contains a statement that should be considered policy.

Well, that seems like an assumption on your part. I never claimed or implied it was a policy. It is a guideline. And, absent of any evidence produced on your part to contradict that guideline, I see no reason to contradict it. -- noosphere 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which policy suggests adding the unsourced tag? WP:GD says ...

In context, you refer to WP:GD as policy; otherwise, you would not have prefaced the statement from WP:GD with a question of policy. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. That is such a stretch. The meaning of my statement was "Which policy suggests adding the unsourced tag? This guideline says..." What's wrong with that? Do I need to specify that WP:GD is a guideline? After all, you claim know Wikipedia so well you shouldn't need to be told. -- noosphere 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a stretch. That's pure and simple English composition. The context of your reply was that WP:GD is policy. You may have not intended that meaning, but intent does not always reflect reality. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No. The context of my reply was that I'd asked you to substantiate your point, and then provided a guideline which substantiated mine. If you took that to mean something more than I said then you're reading in to it. Anyway, this is pointless. We're not getting anywhere with this bickering. So, if you'd like to bring up some new point which we haven't already discussed please do so. I'm tired of rehashing the same points over and over again. -- noosphere 01:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Initiating this AfD was the wrong approach to ensuring that the article contains references. You assumed, and may continue to assume, that this AfD was more necessary than the {{unsourced}} tag.

Again, I did not make an assumption, but saw that the article clearly violated WP:NOR, which is grounds for an AfD, something almost every commentor on this AfD has ignored. They have addressed my concern about this being a neologism, but overall (though not completely) ignored the fact that the article didn't have a single citation to any of its claims. -- noosphere 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You assumed that the editors would not provide sources when asked. Remember that Wikipedia only recently started requiring references. This article was created before that requirement. You immediately proceeded to an AfD instead of kindly asking for sources. Are you a deletionist? Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you know whether I thought the editors would or would not provide sources when asked? AGF please. It doesn't matter to me when this article was created. If it violates Wikipedia policies then it's subject to deletion. -- noosphere 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Typical judgmental errors resulting from either a lack of information or an unwillingness to commit a situational analysis. Marking an article for death is a serious issue. I suggest that in the future you consider this a last resort. There are more civil and appropriate methods for encouraging citation, including using the associated Talk pages and contacting individual editors using the History feature. Adraeus 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now who's lecturing who? Nominating an article for deletion does not violate WP:CIVIL nor any other Wikipedia policy. -- noosphere 01:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you spend more time browsing the policies. Several policies clearly dictate that editors should be more considerate before resorting to removing content. Like you said, AGF. ;) Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I did not remove any content from that article. -- noosphere 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Now please add references within the article so we know which information came from which source. As it stands now there's no indication that those books are of any relation to the text preceding their reference. Also can you or somebody please explain to me how Agnostic atheism differs from Weak atheism? GT 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer my concern. This AfD is now invalid. Adraeus 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me? The AfD hasn't been closed yet. As the self-proclaimed article creator you need to justify its presence and as far as I'm concerned that hasn't happened yet. Also I will reiterate that as the article currently stands, there is no reason for me to believe that those sources you've listed are in any way connected to the information on the page (and indeed anything more than a random sampling of the sources listed at Atheism), which as self-proclaimed article creator should most certainly be your "concern". GT 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not really. Adraeus 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to invoke WP:CIVIL and WP:DBAD here. GT 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not solely responsible, or even responsible, for the article. Read wiki and collaboration.
• I'm not interested in religious or philosophical articles. These are not my areas of interest.
• This AfD is now invalid for the following reason: sources are cited; however, their citation may be considered incomplete. Incomplete citation is not grounds for this AfD per the specific complaint of the initiator (i.e., "... there are no cited sources. There have been sources cited in this AfD, but they are not integrated in to the article, so the specific claims of the article are not sourced. As such, it constitutes original research.")

If you want to volunteer to verify the sources — after all, that's why bibliographies exist — go ahead. Adraeus 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether adding a list of sources to the end of the article without any sort of indication as to the information each source provided constitutes even the initial stages of acceptable citation is a decision to be made by whoever closes this AfD. My contention is that if you consider your work to be at some sort of intermediate stopping point, that you shouldn't have bothered starting. GT 00:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you are not interested in verifying the sources. Cool. Adraeus 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, and you're not either. Again, why bother adding them then? They're useless. GT 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The person who chooses to verify those sources will find the listing useful. Again, read collaboration. Adraeus 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You've already admitted that they aren't sources: "And they weren't used as sources. I said they were references, not bibliographic sources"[2] Oops. Never mind. You were talking about the "parent" articles, not the "references". This long thread is beginning to confuse me. -- noosphere 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously not a neologism. —Pengo 09:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite - The Case Against God (referenced somewhere further up this page) has been around long enough for it not to be original research. However, I'm familiar with this term as a subcategory of atheism, and in particular from the book as one of the two shards of agnosticism that stand alone. The article makes it sound more distinctly separate than that. --Ted 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. If the article doesn't grow in six months, merge and delete. —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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.