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 per WP:SNOW because consensus is clear and notability is amply demonstrated. I encourage the addition of references, some of which were cited in this discussion. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Am Not a Christian[edit]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —--Rrburke^(talk) 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Am Not a Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable essay, no assertion of notability. The only reference is a link to the essay. Hornet35 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Over 60,000 Google hits. Included, for example, in New York Public Library's "Books of the Century" as one of the "books that helped shape and define the last hundred years." Frankly, this is an absurd nomination. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google hits don't mean a whole lot, can you find a source for it being on the NYPL's list? The article currently has no sources (except for a link to the essay). --Hornet35 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply:

• Diefendorf, Elizabeth. The New York Public Library's Books of the Century. New York: OUP, 1996. p.92f.[1]

While Google hits may not mean much, 60,000(!) of them speak volumes. But really, this kind of rudimentary legwork should have been done long before nominating a seminal, widely-known, widely-read, much-discussed work like this. That someone could seriously call this work "non-notable" really leaves me at a loss for words. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete References could probably be found (I don't really have the time to check myself at the moment), and it could be arguably notable as the author is apparently notable himself. However, it is a borderline WP:SOAP, and could perhaps provide a bit more background and a bit less quoted material. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Betrand Russell is "apparently" notable? Look, maybe some more editors having greater familiarity with the subject area need to be encouraged to participate. In the mean time, I think I need a Valium. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon me. Just because I may not know who this person is, does not mean I don't understand Wikipedia policy, which is what matters in this discussion. If you read my comment, that was a reason against deletion, which seems to be what you rather strongly favor. My !vote to delete was based mainly on the tone of the article, not notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you mean you didnt even follow the link to the author? DGG (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and MERGE/REDIRECT. No assertion of notability. No reference to reliable independent sources. No information to assert that the essay has any historical significance whatsoever, other than the fact that it was reprinted in a collection of religious essays, and can be purchased on Amazon and other sites. Show me otherwise, then I'll change my vote. The collection might (or might not) qualify as notable if it can be shown, but so far, the essay itself has no asserted notability on it's own. The essay can be covered sufficiently in the author's article. BaldDee 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Good Lord. Try this. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This book was mentioned in my philosophy class, and I've seen it in my university library (which is not large). The author is one the most noteable philosophers and mathematicians of the last century, and it is well known that he was an athiest. This book contains a concise account of why it is that he held this position, and I think that merits its continued presence. The fact that you are classed as a 'christian wikipedian' suggests a possibility of conflict of interest here. On what grounds do you back your assertion that the book is 'non-notable'? Your suggestion that this article should be removed seems dangerously close to a desire for censureship. 84.65.168.134 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC). Oh, and please stop deleting my responses here.[reply]
  • Comment Something being mentioned in "your philosophy class" hardly makes it notable. Suggesting that my religious beliefs should prohibit me from editing Wikipedia is absurd and amounts to Discrimination against Christians. --Hornet35 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What does make something 'noteable'? What I was suggesting was that it's notability is what led to it being mentioned in my class, rather than vice versa. If a self proclaimed muslim said he wanted to remove an article on some book I knew, say 'A former believers reasons for rejecting islam', and I said that seemed like a conflict of interests, would that amount to a discrimination against muslims? If a self proclaimed materialist and athiest wanted to remove an article about a book which exposed some of the deficits of materialism in accounting for qualitative reality, I'd also see a conflict in interest. I don't think your voice should be silenced, that would be absurd. But I don't think you should take up a practice of looking to censure books which seem threatening to your own beliefs. If you are convinced that your position is correct, then you should recognise that the arguments against it must be unsound, in which case, a great deal can be learned be examining and exposing where people like Russell have gone wrong in forming them. I cannot endorse this kind of censureship; you accuse me of discriminating against religious censureship if you like, but please do not interpret this as any kind of attack towards your own chosen beliefs, which you have a right to express, as should all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.215.36 (talk) 14:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "What does make something 'noteable'?" Please see Wikipedia:Notability. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BaldDee. --Draken36 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Bertrand Russell revolutionized logic and mathematics, founded analytic philosophy and is a Nobel Prize for Literature-winning author "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." From Wikipedia:Notability (books). This nomination is ridiculous. Skomorokh ^incite 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Rrburke and Skomorokh. This link to the New York Public Library can be used as a reference that it was included in their "Books of the Century" exhibition and publication. Skarioffszky 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT/CLRAIFICATION. I would like to clarify my vote. There are two different discussions regarding two different subjects going on here. My vote was in reference to the article regarding the essay. There is also a book by the same name, which included, among others, the titular essay. Clearly, the author is notable as, more than likely, is the book. Every assertion of notability so far has been in reference to either to the author or the book. If someone can show an assertion of notability of the essay as a stand-alone, seperate from the book, then it may warrant it's own article. Otherwise MERGE the article into either a section within the article regarding the author or an article on the book. (BTW. "Good Lord" was excellent - and appropriate - turn of phrase Rrburke!!) --BaldDee 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The most famous essay by one of the most notable modern philosophers. Mcwatson 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The essay/book distinction is academic, since the book is named after and includes the essay. That's like saying Stairway to Heaven is not notable because it was neveer released as a stand-alone single. AfD is not for articles that need work. bobanny 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very relevant essay by notable individual. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Highly notable work, by one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. ornis (t) 15:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reviewed in Washington Post 1957, New Republic 1958, still in Print after near eighty years, authored by a Nobel Prize winner who is probably a "top ten" philosopher of all time. Acceptable as a spinout of his biography; may need cleanup or attention but this should be accomplished through normal channels. Eleland 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep references are available, at least two are cited already, therefore it passes WP:N. The very fact that it was written by a highly notable philosopher ought to be enough to make it notable in its own right. Hut 8.5 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is what The New York Times calls a "classic 1927 essay". As stated above, it definitely passes WP:BK because "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." Spellcast 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Very famous essay by major philosopher. Really, WTF? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cold fusion-powered strong Keep this nomination terrifies me. Bertrand Russell was arguably the most important philosopher of the last century. His essays are beyond notable. What's next? Principia_Mathematica? --JayHenry 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move this deletion nomination to WP:BJAODN Lurker (said · done) 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't. Hut 8.5 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it's like losing a friend. RIP BJAODN. Lurker (said · done) 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This user seems to have a thing for deleting athesism-realted articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Atheist Society and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.atheism Lurker (said · done) 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Inquiry (magazine). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • note I just noticed that. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It, though that may be a simple mistake as it was published later under a different name. Lurker (said · done) 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic whirl, the logo of a prominent atheist organisation Lurker (said · done) 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also note Nominator is a suspected sockpuppet of User:PEAR. LaMenta3 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - per User:Skomorokh above, as Russell was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century. Oli Filth 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very famous essay by famous essayist. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable, but could maybe do with more references in the article. Mdwh 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom StoneGiant 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I couldn't disagree more with the essay, but it is notable and has been referenced many times. Needs more sources to show notability, though. I do sense a bit of a vendetta in submitting atheism articles for AfD's some of which do have merit. As a Christian I obviously disagree with atheism, but I don't think it should be swept with a broad sword from the databases of Wikipedia. Realkyhick 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not about how I feel about the essay, but on the essay itself. When I was a student, I've come across this one on more than two dozen Philosophy textbooks in the University library. It appears that this essay is often quoted as an example argument against the belief of a deity (and, usually, contrasted with another essay from another equally-recognized philosopher or theologian like St. Thomas Aquinas). I'd agree, though, that this article needs more references and discussion. I'd love to see some additional material, such as other philosophers who wrote counter-arguments to this essay. --- Tito Pao 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and obvious keep - very ill-thought out nomination. Otto4711 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:35, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and encyclopedic, but I'd like to see the article developed more. — RJH (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Astonishing that this was even nominated. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 30 August 2007 (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.