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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 06:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I renamed this article from "Criticism of Atheism" because atheism is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. I'm changing the title of this section to reflect the new name. - Brian Kendig 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, three line stub that should remain a part of the atheism article, and basically misappropriating the dictionary definition of atheism to try and create a stub. If a decent article can be made out of this, then great, but as 'atheism' is just a lack of belief in a god/religion, I find it hard to find that enough verifiable information could be found on this to justify anything more than a section in the atheism article. If I'm wrong, I will happily rescind this vote. I couldn't find anything, really, though, that wasn't just kneejerk attacking, 'You don't agree with us so you are going to hell'-thuggery and suchlike. Proto||type 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. I was just in the process of moving info from Atheism#Criticisms of atheism when I got an edit conflict with your afd. I think the creator of the article had articles like Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity in mind when he created this. It was also suggested at Template talk:Islam -- Astrokey44|talk 11:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a strange place to discuss such a move, but hey. I'm gonna stand by my delete vote, although the info should be merged back into Atheism first. Proto||type 15:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Atheism. - Sikon 13:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or clean up. Too POV. Arundhati Bakshi 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per below. Comment It would be better to build this up as a section of Atheism and spin it off when it gets big enough. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — This page already looks like a split-off sub-topic heading from Atheism, which is a huge page. I don't see a benefit from a merge. The topic seems valid philosophically, so it just needs a neutrality check IMO and some references. — RJH 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. At 76kb long, Atheism is too big already. bcasterline^talk 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. The page appears to hold a theistic POV in its discussion of the topic. Atheist rebuttals to the arguments presented should also be included, where appropriate. Not to turn the article in to a slanging match, just to maintain the NPOV attitude required in WP article standards.  (aeropagitica)  19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bcasterline; I would vote to merge if the parent article weren't so large and hard to trim without a [N]POV fight. Barno 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - In a few words... this is garbage. It's completely unreferenced, vague, and POV. This smells of original research. There's not even much that would be appropriate as a section under Atheism. Cuñado - Talk 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV and no references -- Jeff3000 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was barely created and it was already proposed for deletion, we should at least give this page more time to be developed. The topic itself is a valid one. (And, yes, Atheism is too big already) --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks a pretty substantial article now and it would be difficult to merge it into atheism. It contains some valuable material. --Bduke 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article is philosophically valid and I can see it growing from its current position. Wikipedia already houses criticism of other beliefs, why not Atheism? I am currently in the middle of a project eating up my time. However when I do find time, I will surely contribute to this interesting and well-needed article. I believe we must give this article the room it deserves to grow--Jasonblake69 06:25, 23 February 2006 (EST)
• Keep if was moved from Atheism - that would ensure quality of content. Delete if it is just someone's opinion placed here now. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, it was moved from Atheism because that article was becoming too large; it presents some arguments that are key to understanding atheism in the form of a dialogue. The article requires some cleanup and more references. ChaTo 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I feel it's useful to Wikipedia to document the common criticisms of atheism and the common responses to them, especially because the criticisms are widespread and the responses are sound. (If I had a dime for every person who told me "you can't be an atheist because you would need to know every hair on every flea on every planet in the universe because God might be there!") - Brian Kendig 19:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Article needs some work, but appears to be a serious attempt at on a topic worthy of inclusion. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, cleanup. "but as 'atheism' is just a lack of belief in a god/religion" is clearly a POVed and highly disputable statement, as there are numerous definitions of atheism, not just "lack of belief in a god" (and certainly not "lack of religion", which is irreligion). -Silence 14:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A belief has tenets which can be criticized. A lack of belief has no such tenets. Any criticism of atheism is just an argument for theism with a double negative, so to speak. Teflon Don 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what this article is intended for; Criticism of (as you said) "lack of belief". --Jasonblake69 22:12, 26 February 2006 (EST)

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.