Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists

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 both the list and the article. Many have commented that the main article on nontheism is just OR. However, a number of other editors have pointed out that it's not OR, and is referenced in the etymology section, which is the case, with reasonable references. This the central reason for deleting the article doesn't really stand up. With the list, there are a wide variety of suggestions with what to do with it. Some would like it deleted, for reasons such as it's an indiscriminate list of information, that it's not sourced properly, and of course because their is no such thing as "nontheism". Many others would like it kept, or are at least ambivalent towards it (which is not really helpful in determining whether to delete or keep the article!) My reasons for keeping the list are that there is nothing stopping editors from sourcing the article more thoroughly, and that it actually is useful to know who counts themselves as a nontheist. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nontheists

List of nontheists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have nominated two articles for deletion - Nontheism and List of nontheists.

These two articles should be deleted for the following reasons:

  • The word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Thus, it fails WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place to define new terms. There are no reliable sources which clearly define nontheism. It fails WP:V.
  • The definition of nontheists in the List of nontheists is incorrect. According to the list, the definition of nontheists is: "A nontheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities." This is a definition of atheist. And, there is no reliable source which define nontheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities. Thus, it fails WP:V.
  • To call someone a nontheist can be problematic. They may them self reject such label. On list of nontheists many famous people who have never identified themselves as a nontheist are identified as a nontheist. Wikipedia is the only place where such label is used.
  • Many people consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. There is no point in having separate articles. RS1900 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RS1900 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge - Redirect nontheism to atheism, and delete List of nontheists entirely.-- Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Floaterfluss, what is/are the reason(s) for your delete/merge recommendation? Nick Graves 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge as per Floaterfluss. - Pureblade | Θ 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pureblade, Floaterfluss did not give any reasons for his/her recommendation. What are your reasons? Nick Graves 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as suggested--the definition is too controversial, and as stated, does not correspond to the entries. The entries--at least the ones for other lists--seem to use the logical "people, other than theists"-- but however logical, that it not a standard term and proves confusing. DGG (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both.
    • Existence and use of the term is attested to by multiple sources, as cited in the Nontheism article. Words and concepts that are defined by reliable third party sources are legitimate subjects of Wikipedia articles, even if major dictionaries have not yet caught up enough to document them. Besides, non-theist and non-theistic are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, so even if one accepts the "it's not in a dictionary, so it shouldn't be in Wikipedia" argument, an article on nontheists is in order.
    • The definition is correct, per the OED definitions for non-theist and theist. A non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods" or "a person who believes in one God who created and intervenes in the universe."
    • The definition in the List of nontheists is the same as a definition of "atheist," but it is not the definition. As documented in Atheism (a feature article), some definitions of that word specify that only those who deny the existence of a deity are atheists, which would mean that not all nontheists are atheists. Also, agnostics are nontheists, yet agnosticism is commonly considered to be a position distinct from atheism.
    • Calling someone a nontheist is not problematic, as it does not bear the same potentially pejorative sense long carried by the label atheist (as in "godless" or "immoral.") I suppose one could call them "people who do not believe in God," but nontheist is perfectly descriptive of that position--it says the same thing.
    • Wikipedia is not the only place where the label nontheist is used. It has been used by the sources the OED referred to when making its entry for "non-theist," and by the many sources cited in the Nontheism article.
    • Many people do consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. But that is just one point of view among many. Many people also consider nontheism to be a category that contains atheism, but also contains other positions that are not atheism. That's why there ought to be separate articles. A redirect is inappropriate.
    • Whether a term is potentially confusing has no import on whether it ought to have an article. Atheism is a potentially confusing term, with multiple points of view as to its "standard" definition, yet it remains, and ought to. English vocabulary, theology and philosophy aren't always clean and easy to understand, but articles relating to these sometimes messy issues still fulfill the proper role of an encyclopedia.
    • At best, these arguments point to a need for additional sourcing and edits to clarify, not deletion, merging or redirecting. Arguments based on the contention that nontheism = atheism are dependent on a particular point of view, and any action based on such reasoning runs counter to WP:NPOV. Nick Graves 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Nick, you are right. Non-theist and non-theistic are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. However, Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Thus, it fails WP:OR.
      • A non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." How do you define theism? A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods". Here God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal.
      • You said "agnostics are nontheists". That's incorrect. An agnostic believe that the existance of God is unknown. One cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. Agnosticism is a state of neither belief or disbelief. Thus, nontheists are not agnostics.
      • That's your POV.
      • Nick, can you find a single source where Nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. That's the problem. RS1900 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nontheism and Delete list. The list is pretty useless, and is often a point of contention except in clear cases of self-identification. But nontheism is a distinctly separate term implying a form of atheistic belief (just like agnosticism is often considered to be in the family of atheistic thought). If necessary, I can go into more detail about the differences, but I feel the article makes this sufficiently clear. To be perfectly honest, only someone who doesn't know squat about the subject could think it is simply an analogy for atheism, just read the source material for pete's sake. VanTucky Talk 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In what way are entries on the list a point of contention? If you're talking about the nontheist groups listed, I'm inclined to agree. I added that section to address concerns of T. Anthony, who favored more inclusiveness for the list. I'd favor deleting that section if other editors agree that it is potentially contentious. What do you mean by self-identification? Do you mean only persons who have specifically used the word "nontheist" for themselves? Can persons who have simply said "I don't believe in God" be considered to have identified themselves as nontheists, even if they don't use the word? I believe they can, given the literal meaning of the word, and the fact that, unlike atheist, nontheist is merely descriptive of a position, without a potentially pejorative sense. Nick Graves 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Nick, you said, "nontheist is merely descriptive of a position, without a potentially pejorative sense." Well, that's your POV. RS1900 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Delete article, Keep list. Nontheist is just a way of saying "not a theist", as is made clear by the word itself and the article. Therefore, the concept of nontheism is sufficiently covered by good coverage of Theism. Most of the article is just explaining the word, which is useless because the meaning of the word is obvious. On the other hand, the list of nontheistic groups is interesting because it shows at a glance the groups that don't require a belief in gods, and the list of nontheists is interesting and it is far easier to assemble than a list of atheists, because atheism is harder to show than nontheism. I think the sources cited are sufficient to show nontheism for the people listed, so there is nothing wrong with this list. -- Lilwik 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Lilwik, even if the meaning of nontheism is obvious, the Nontheism article does a good job of documenting its etymology and the history of its usage, and points out such facts as the word's macaronic nature, which would not be obvious to most readers. Besides, an encyclopedia's job is to document subjects no matter their level of complexity or obviousness. That's why we have such articles as Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Nick Graves 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. Okay, you've convinced me. The fact that nontheism isn't in the dictionary just makes it all the more interesting as a topic, since it's a word with a history and a real, interesting etymology that is not in common usage. -- Lilwik 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both The premise of both articles is that there is a belief system called "nontheism" that is not exactly the same as atheism or agnosticism, and that certain famous people are nontheists. The problem I have with both articles is the, pardon the expression, "holier than thou" approach by someone who holds himself or herself out to be a theologian who doesn't need anything to back up statements. Thus, we are told that "Most agnostics are nontheists, though there are some agnostic theists." Was there a survey of some sort? And "All atheists are nontheists in the narrow and broad senses of the word". And "Certain Buddhists believe the Buddha to be a deity". If you were smart, of course, you would KNOW these things already. Sorry, I don't buy it. Mandsford 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your comments seem odd and self-contradictory. "If you are smart, of course, you would know these things already," makes it sound as though you think the article is correct. "I don't buy it," seems to have the opposite meaning. Are you saying that smart people know these things are true, but you say they're false? -- Lilwik 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no such premise to these articles, and I find your tone unnecessarily condescending. johnpseudo 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Mandsford, your comment borders on being a personal attack. Even if you were correct that the editor has a "holier than thou" attitude, that has no bearing on whether the article should be deleted. If the tone of the prose is haughty, then it ought to be edited accordingly. Tone is not grounds for deletion. The need for sources to back up claims is a substantive criticism, and I have removed the "Nontheist groups" section of the list pending documentation of the claims made there. The remainder of the list--the definitions of the word, and the individual entries--are all well documented by reliable sources. Nick Graves 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Aw gee, three in a row? The "If you were smart" comment was my attempt at sarcasm. The point is that when one challenges someone about a "fact" that is tossed out with no proof, the response is often, "Well everyone knows that!". It's a wonderful tool for manipulation, and something that you should be aware of. This article is full of such "facts", like "most agnostics are nontheists" or, "certain Buddhists" do thus and such. If I were to say "Most patriots are Republicans", would you assume that it was true? Or, more likely, would you say, "Mandford, where's your proof of that?" I didn't intend to attack Nick Graves personally -- I didn't check to see who the authors or contributors were, and I don't know Nick from Adam -- but I do attack the articles. Writing style can be fixed easily, but locating sources isn't as easy a fix. Mandsford 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Mandsford, don't listen to Nick Graves. He said: "The remainder of the list--the definitions of the word, and the individual entries--are all well documented by reliable sources". None of that is true. The definition of the non-theist on List of nontheists is incorrect. List of nontheists is "anything goes" type of list. RS1900 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's true. Look at the article. Look at the references. The section that Mandsford criticized is gone, since it had no sources. The definition of nontheist in the article is incorrect only if the Oxford English Dictinary is incorrect. Are you contending, RS, that the OED is not a reliable enough source to be worthy of use for Wikipedia articles? The list is not an "anything goes" type of list--it has clear criteria, and all entries are sourced. RS is misrepresenting this article. Nick Graves 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Nick, you are misrepresenting the List of nontheists. I can inculde even a proponent of Intelligent design who rejects the theistic concept of God on List of nontheists. Thus, both proponents of ID and proponents of atheism can be include on List of nontheists. RS1900 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments on the list I think the list is intrinsically worthless because there will be nobody to include. Most of the people now there say they are atheists. They belong in the atheist list if its relevant to their notability--some are.. Agnostics, belong in their appropriate list. Any pantheists, likewise, and deists, and Buddhists, and so forth. So who would be in it--all of the above? we don't do super-lists like that --it would be like a "List of alumni of American colleges, as well as the specific ones. Or "List of major-party members of Congress" Or "List of MPs other than Conservative" There may be some people whose beliefs are so totally nonspecific that they fit in no other category: but that is not a manageable basis for a list, which requires some degree of consistency. How does one classify someone who says "I mean, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I pray three or four times a day." I classify him as as confused. Do we really want a "List of people with confused ideas of religion"? Even if it were useful, it's POV, and would require that they be shown not to have ever said something more definable. Or consider: "I don't believe in God, but I believe God invented four-tracks" --I classify that as a clever phrase that may or may not have any connection to actual religious belief. Further, we don't usually include people in these lists unless it is in some way relevant to their notability or career. I can not see how the fact that some one has such a vague belief can possible have such belief relevant to anything important about themselves. DGG (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, none of the people in the list have identified as atheists, agnostics or otherwise — if you can demonstrate otherwise they only need be transferred to the appropriate list. This excludes very minor subdivisions - only a handful of people identify as ignostics, so it would not be appropriate to start a five-name list for them. That very small list, along with people who do not believe in deities but do not identify as atheists, agnostics or other major groups, would belong in the list. Lists (as opposed to categories) very frequently include people to whose notability the subject is not important - including the vast majority of college alumni to which you refer. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, we do do super-lists. Just see Lists of people. SwitChar is right about none of those listed being identified as atheists or agnostics. That's why the list was started in the first place--to document persons who do not have theistic belief, but who, for one reason or another, cannot be definitively categorized as atheist, agnostic, etc. That's one of the advantages that Wikipedia's List of atheists and its sister List of nontheists has over other online sources that document notable people's religious disbelief--the Wikipedia lists apply much more rigorous criteria and base entries only on reliable sources. As for the individual examples you cite, those are only two entries, which alone do not undermine the legitimacy of the entire list. If editors contend that a jokey comment or a confused statement aren't enough for inclusion, then they can be challenged and removed. Nick Graves 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Per the well thought-out arguments of Nick Graves. Nontheism is a useful, well-documented term, and the list is fairly non-contentious and informative. johnpseudo 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Johnpseudo, the word nontheism is not defined by any notable dictionaries as of 2007. The definition of nontheists is totally incorrect. How can we have such article and list? Both should be deleted. You said that the list is fairly non-contentious and informative. Really? Almost all people on List of nontheists have clearly said "I don't believe in God". When someone says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. And, there is no source which clearly define nontheism. RS1900 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • None of this is true. Nontheist is defined by the OED. Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. Mere absence of belief in God or a deity is not atheism under all definitions and given that atheist has a pejorative use it would be unwise to label someone as an atheist if they do not identify as such. There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Really? Nontheism is not defined by the OED. Only non-theist is defined by the OED. In fact, the word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. It fails WP:OR. RS1900 12:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Please read what I said, RS. Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. ... There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. The term nontheism meets WP:NEO as it has been well-documented, per the sources in its article. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Nick graves... very good and exhaustive argument.JJJ999 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for Nontheism - references are clearly provided in the article. If there is reason to dispute these, I suggest taking it up on Talk first. At worst, move to non-theistic, which apparentely is in the dictionary. Mdwh 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, you are right. References are clearly provided in the article. However, can you find a single source where nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. That's why, we don't need seperate articles. RS1900 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you find a single source in which the Sun is not connected to the Solar System? Perhaps those articles should be merged as well. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Switch, please define the term 'Nontheism'. I am not asking you to define non-theist. What is nontheism? Please define. RS1900 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • As I said, Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. ... There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. If you want a definition, you could easily try the article itself or its sources. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for List of nontheists. Few of those listed seem to identify as non-theists, and this issue seems to be better covered by the other lists (although note that the consensus is that "Lists of people" are rather dubious generally, as we can't be sure whether a person should be classified as such, and it risks violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Mdwh 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Mdwh, the other lists do cover the vast majority of nontheists. However, this list fulfills a useful role by listing person who do not fit the criteria of the other lists, but who can clearly be identified as nontheists. I do not believe self-identification by the specific term "nontheist" is necessary for inclusion in the case of this list, since, unlike atheist, nontheist is not a potentially pejorative term, and is merely descriptive of someone holding a stance that can be documented by a reliable source. Nick Graves 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • And, who set the criteria? Who decides which word is pejorative or not? Nontheist is not a potentially pejorative term because it is an unknown term. It is simply an obscure and ill-defined term. People simply don't use such terms and famous people who are categorized as a nontheist have never used such term. RS1900 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The criteria are set by the editors of the article--what's your point? The word atheist is potentially pejorative due to the fact that it has been used as an insult meaning "immoral." This is documented by reliable sources in the Atheism article. Nontheist is not an unknown term. It's in the OED, as already pointed out numerous times. If you still think the word is ill-defined, I suppose you can take it up with the editors of that work. By Wikipedia's standards, however, the OED is a reliable source. Why do you insist that someone must use a term for themselves for it to be applicable? Protagoras was no less an agnostic for not having used the term for himself. His agnostic views are documented in his writings, and it is perfectly appropriate to call him an agnostic. The same is true in the case of calling people who say "I don't believe in God" nontheists. Nick Graves 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Nick, how can you say that atheist is potentially pejorative? In UK, France, other EU countries, China, and in many other countries, the views of atheists are respected. The term 'non-theist' is not used that much. And, a non-theist can believe in an impersonal God or non-theistic God. RS1900 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nontheism and Delete list. I echo VanTucky above, for pete's sake. --Evb-wiki 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Evb-wiki, can you find a single source where nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. We don't need seperate articles. RS1900 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Try reading this academic article. And this article, which discusses Christianity and "practical nontheism," also the theme of two books reviewed here, suggesting that "taking leave of God is not the same as Godlessness." Atheism is a belief system, while nontheism is not necessarily a belief system. --Evb-wiki 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Atheism is not a belief system. As an atheist, I simply don't believe in God. And, I don't care whether you believe in 1 God, 10 Gods or don't believe in any God. Atheists do not believe in God. That's it. RS1900 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It's nice to know your POV on the matter RS, but you should leave it at the door when you enter the realm of editing Wikipedia. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Aww. What about WP:Civil and WP:AGF? If you continue with this sort of tone, we cannot have a constructive dialog. Atheism is not a belief system. And, that's not my point of view. RS1900 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Just a reminder RS. As the discussions on the atheism article clearly show, as does the article in its current, NPOV form, the word atheism has several meanings, from nontheism to antitheism, and it has been used as a pejorative frequently, including in recent times. That the term atheist is synonymous with nontheist and not at all potentially pejorative is entirely your own POV. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the hopelessly open ended list. Artw 02:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Recently List of Christians was deleted. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). Unencyclopedic lists and articles must be deleted. RS1900 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • List of Christians had serious problems that List of nontheists does not have. The membership on the List of Christians did not have sources to support each one, and the rules for membership were vague and went against the rules for Wikipedia lists because of that. In contrast, the List of nontheists has support for each entry and simple rules for membership in the list, as simple as the definition of theism. -- Lilwik 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • There is a difference. On List of nontheists, people who have never identified themselves as a nontheist are also listed as a nontheist. And, please look at the definiton of nontheist. According to the list, the definition of nontheists is: "A nontheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities." I tried to find a source where nontheist is defined like this. I couldn't find any source. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." How do you define theism? A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods". Here God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal. RS1900 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If "a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God," how can you argue that nontheism and atheism be covered in the same article? --Evb-wiki 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I am not agruing that nontheism and atheism should covered in the same article. Nontheism is not defined yet. However, non-theist is defined as someone who is not a theist. RS1900 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I must have misunderstood the comment in your nomination saying, "There is no point in having separate articles." --Evb-wiki 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I was talking about the article Deism. Deist don't believe in a personal God. However, they do believe in an impersonal God. RS1900 05:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Your explanation is not clear to me. You have nicely broken down the meaning of nontheist according to Oxford and it matches the meaning given by the list. Yet you say it does not match? If a nontheist is someone who is not a theist and a theist is someone who believes in God or gods, then through the simplest of logic we directly derive that a nontheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods. Of course we have people on the list who state they do not believe in God; that describes everyone on the list. What has being personal or impersonal got to do with that? Please do not take offense, I merely find your reasoning to be not clearly explained. -- Lilwik 05:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Please read what I wrote carefully. Theist is someone who believes in God or gods. Here theistic God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other word, theist is a person who believe in a God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A person can reject the concept of personal God (God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent) and believe in an impersonal God. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as miracles and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. There are many people who believe in an impersonal God and reject the concept of divine intervention. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal. RS1900 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
              • That is not the definition of a personal god RS. Please read the appropriate article. Further, a theist (per your own definition) is not someone who believes in a personal god, but merely someone who believes in a deity. Therefore, a nontheist is someone who does not believe in a deity. Therefore, the list should contain people who do not believe in deities, as it does. Nontheists of a more specific nature, such as those identifying as belonging to major groups of nonthiesm such as atheism or agnosticism, are placed in the more precise list. Regardless of your entire argument, someone who does not believe in any god neither matches the most restrictive definition of an atheist, nor are they a theist. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
                • A theist is someone who believes in a deity. But what kind of a deity? A deity which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A personal who rejects the concept of theistic God is called deist. RS1900 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • The type of deity is unimportant, RS; one who believes in a deity is a theist. However, I seem to be unable to understand what relevance your argument has to this discussion. Are you suggesting that the people listed are in fact deists? That would most certainly be original research. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • No, a non-theist can believe in a non-theistic God. Many physicists, chemists, and other scientists believe in a creator but they don't believe in a personal God. They believe in an impersonal God. For example, Thomas Alva Edison didn't believe in the God of religions; however, he believed in "the Supreme intelligence that rules matter". I am not suggesting that people listed on List of nontheists are deists, they are atheist. A non-theists do not believe in a personal God and they may or may not believe in an impersonal God. If a person do not believe in a personal and impersonal God, he is an atheist. If a person believe in an impersonal God but reject the concept of a personal God, he is a deist. If a person believe in a personal God, and believe that the existance of an impersonal God is unknown, he is an agnostic deist. The list of nontheists is not required. RS1900 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Artw, how is the list hopelessly open-ended. The inclusion criteria are clearly defined. There is a finite supply of notable people whose nontheism can be reliably documented. Nick Graves 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --RucasHost 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article, delete list. V35322 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have time to go over your new arguments just yet RS1, will do so later.JJJ999 05:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both per the Nick Graves. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article, no opinion on list. Dictionary inclusion is not a requirement, the term is attested and has a reliable definition distinct from atheist. Article is referenced, and I don't really see the problem. SamBC(talk) 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete list, keep article. The article has some good content and will continue to grow and develop. The list, like most other such belief lists, it's basically an indiscriminate collection that would better be served as a category if even such a thing were needed. Prominent or notable nontheists can be discussed in the article without the need for such a list (note: that is not a merge vote as such content should be in prose form in the article, not in a list form). violet/riga (t) 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Violetriga, the list criteria are clearly defined, so I do not see how the list is an indiscriminate collection of information. Categories do not perform the same function as lists, since they cannot contain references or substantiating quotes. Nick Graves 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Further, lists may include people in unrelated fields, whereas categories are preferably applied only to people whose notability is directly connected to the category's subject. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article for sure, but I have mixed feelings about the list. The reason the list exists is a very internal to Wikipedia, and can be hard for other people to understand. We don't want to list people as atheists, unless they either self-identify or explicitly and state they believe that God does not exist. However, if someone just says "I don't believe in God", he isn't allowed on the list of atheists, but he is allowed here. Essentially, we have "List of strong atheists and self-identifying atheists" and "List of weak atheists and self-identifying non-theists". In some sense, this is a very long-sought for compromise between editors of different POVs, I wouldn't throw it out the window, instead I wish it was more clear to the reader what is going on here. Many people would consider the statement "Personally, I don't believe in God at all" as atheist, while something like "I'm not sure, perhaps there is a god, no, I don't think so, I believer there is no God" seems to me much weaker, and the person just happened to use a strong atheism formulation. Anyway, my conclusion is then a weak keep for the list, because although I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, the list is a difficult compromise on a very sensitive topic: the definition of atheism. --Merzul 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Merzul, When someone says "I'm not sure, perhaps there is a god, no, I don't think so, I believer there is no God", he is a confused person. He may wake up the next day and say "I believe in God". However, when someone clearly says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. RS1900 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't that second agnostic? Adam Cuerden talk 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In some cases, and in some cases its a synonym. Certainly some of the people on this list are strong atheists by any definition based on the information shown about them here & elsewhere. Weak conception.: list of people who have at one time or another said "I dont believe in a personal god"--that's not defined enough to be usable.DGG (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article, per Nick Graves and because the root of the term "non-theist" is defined by OED, which makes the slight variation "Nontheism" not WP:OR. Also, while the prose needs a lot of work, there is definite potential to expand. Also seems like there is only one editor (the nominator him/herself) vehemently for the deletion and their only points were well refuted by Graves in his original response. The list is weaker as the names are not self-identified as non-theists and many could object to "Nontheist" as soon as "Atheist." Adam McCormick 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In fairness, I do see a handful of "delete" recommendations above. And more for just the list. --Evb-wiki 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, how do you define the term 'atheist'? An atheist is a person who do not believe in the existance of God. So, why do we have people who have clearly said "I don't believe in God" listed on List of nontheists? It simply doesn't make any sense. RS1900 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it is because the class of nontheists is broader than the class of atheists. All atheists are nontheists, but not all notheists are atheists. That might explain it. --Evb-wiki 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, we don't need a kind of super-list, do we? The definition of the term 'atheist' is quite strainghtforward. An atheist is a person who do not believe in the existance of God. Thus, when someone says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. RS1900 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The problem with atheism is that not everyone shares your POV on what atheism means. Another common usage of the word has atheist mean a person who believes that gods don't exist. In that case, simply saying, "I don't believe in God," would not necessarily make you an atheist. Nontheism does not suffer from that difficulty. -- Lilwik 04:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
              • According to the OED, the definition of atheist is: atheist n a person who does not believe in God. So, that not my POV. Atheism is not a belief system. And, one more thing: Can you find a single who says, "I don't believe in God and I think God exist"? No. Only a foolish individual will say that. A person who says, "I don't believe in God" think that there is no God or there is almost certainly no God. RS1900 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • A comment is not a "vehement" statement. I see only two votes for delete with reasoning beyond "per nom" and only one person responding to the many "Keep" arguments. Furthermore, one of those "Delete" comments concerned the text of the article rather than its subject. Adam McCormick 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: RS1900 is to be commended for the rigor of his thinking.
  • If it were up to me, self-described "agnostics" would be classified as "atheists" since, if they can't decide whether there is a God/god, they cannot be said to believe in one; and a person who does not believe in a God/god is an atheist.
  • Unfortunately, as with other belief or non-belief systems, the universe of atheism has become splintered, partly due to bigots who have freighted a simple concept with pejorative baggage.
  • A fairly neutral (probably because less known) term is "nontheism," which may perhaps serve as an umbrella term — not only for "atheism" and "agnosticism" but also for belief systems, many of them Asian, that have not thought even to make use of the concept of divinity.
  • So I shall stick — happily — with "nontheism."
  • (If someone spots an illogicality in any of the foregoing, I would appreciate having it brought to my attention.) Nihil novi 05:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Nihil novi Nihil novi, an agnostic doesn't believe or disbelieve in God or Gods. And, atheists don't believe in God or Gods. There is a clear difference between atheists and agnostics. Please try to understand agnosticism before you make any comment. Please read the work of agnostics like Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert G. Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. RS1900 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Nontheism as per Nick Graves and others. --Statsone 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep List of nontheists as per Nick Graves and others --Statsone 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any specific reason why the AfD covers 2 articles that are in many ways completely different? Why have the initial posters calling for delete not responded to additional comment? --Statsone 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The initial poster was RS1900 — who has indeed been doing valiant combat with the forces of godless nontheism. Nihil novi 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for the article - a useful contribution in an area where shades of meaning are difficult and contentious - yes, valuable. Weak delete for the list - defining a list by a negative is not a good idea. Snalwibma 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Snalwibma: Why do you think that defining a list by a negative is a bad idea? Nick Graves 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete for List of nontheists Abstain for Nontheism. Michaelkulov 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Michaelkulov: what are the reasons for your recommendation? Nick Graves 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
please see my comment below; i've argued enough on the pointlessness of the list in the list itself, but i've decided not to opt for the deletion of the article due to its history. Michaelkulov 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth striking/editing your original comment to help the closing admin get an overview of views. SamBC(talk) 00:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, doing that now. Michaelkulov 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy KEEP Nontheism. This is akin to deleting and redirecting Protestantism to Christianity because the former is one of the forms of the latter. The term nontheism/nontheist has been around since at least the 1800s according to OED. The term has obvious differences with the various forms of atheism, which all need to be explained thoroughly. It makes no sense to redirect one name to another, much broader name, when both names have their own varied histories. Abstain for List of nontheists. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 15:55Z
Pretty good point with the article. You could probably toss the list and keep the article. Michaelkulov 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we have articles like Nonbelieve, Disbelieve, and Non-religion? No. Do we have lists like List of nonbelievers, List of disbelievers and List of non-religious people? No. We simply don't have such articles and lists because we don't need them. Brian, you said "the term (nontheism) has obvious differences with the various forms of atheism." Brian, what are those differences? And, there is an article called 'Deism'. Someone should clearly state how nontheism is different from atheism and deism. If somebody can clearly state those differences, then the article 'Nontheism' should not be deleted. As far as List of nontheists is concerned, it should be deleted. How do you define the term 'atheist'? According to the OED, following is the definition of 'atheist':
atheist n a person who does not believe in God.

On List of nontheists, we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in God. They should be on List of atheists. And, I also believe that we should divide the List of atheists into two sections. There are atheists who actively promote atheism and there are atheists who don't promote atheism. There is a difference. One section should be for those who promote atheism (e.g. Richard Dawkins) and the other section should be for those who do not promote atheism and keep their atheism private (e.g. Linus Pauling). RS1900 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep the article, Agnostic on the list. I reject the argument that if something isn't in the dictionary it is WP:OR or WP:NEO, as there are lots of reliable sources other than dictionaries. Nontheism is covered by many, such as the book "Godless for God's Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism". As for the list, I personally think it's pointless and unmaintainable, (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Since Nick Graves had solid arguments about the list and I don't, I'll refrain from further comment. Billgordon1099 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Observation it seems that some criticism is of the implementation of the list, not of its existence. Based on sources and arguments given here, it would seem that atheists are a subset of nontheists (or non-theists, I don't think that the hyphen is important). Nontheists reject theism, where theism is the idea of a personal and active god. Therefore deists are a subset of nontheists, as are atheists, as are a number of other groups and categories and an arguably infinite number of personal beliefs that people have. If a person has professed beliefs that mark them as nontheists, then it's reasonable to include them. Editorial judgement may lead to consensus that if a person belongs to a more specific group that already has a list of its own (such as atheists, I believe), then it is better to include that person on the other list, and link to all such other lists. These comments aren't entirely relevant to the article, except where they may indicate ways in which the article ought to be refocussed. If the list were to meet the description I give, or there was a resolution to refactor it as such, then I would strongly and firmly suggest keeping the list as well as the article. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, what you describe is exactly what the list was until a few days ago: See this version. The list prior to this AfD discussion included links to lists of other people whose stances, according to one definition of the word, qualify as nontheistic. Mandsford above objected to the unsupported comments made in that section of the list, so I deleted it until I could supply the appropriate sources to support that section.
    • I must say, I'm mystified by the large number of people recommending keeping the Nontheism article, but recommending deleting the list, or pointedly abstaining from making a recommendation concerning the list. Perhaps it is because of a residual distaste for the numerous lists of people by belief that fail to maintain clear or restrictive enough inclusion criteria, or that fail to provide sources to back up their content. Neither of these flaws are present in this list. As far as such lists go, List of nontheists is actually a stellar example of maintainability and thorough sourcing, as are its sister lists List of atheists and List of agnostics (unfortunately, I cannot say the same for List of humanists, though I intend to do what I can to fix that soon).
    • I suspect that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, candidly cited by Billgordon, has more to do with why people are recommending deletion of the list than anything else. I have yet to see what I would consider to be a well-supported, policy-citing reason for deletion of the list. There have been some who have recommended deletion without saying why. RS's assertion of WP:V violation doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does any objection citing WP:OR, as all the content is backed up by reliable sources. The fact is that the list has been well-maintained. I recall reading an argument that lists should not be defined by a negative, and I agree that this is generally true (eg. we wouldn't want a list of all celebrities who have not appeared on SNL--such a list would be massive, and the lists of SNL hosts and musical guests renders the list pointless). However, while List of nontheists appears on the face of it to be a list defined by a negative, what it documents in practice is people who have said they do not believe in God or gods. That's a positive action made by a small minority of people, and is culturally significant in a world where the vast majority of people do believe in God.
    • It has been said that the list is pointless. I suppose if someone is not interested in whether someone does or does not believe in deities, then the list is pointless to them. I'm personally not interested in who is or isn't a vegan. But there are Wikipedia readers who are interested in vegans, and those who are interested in nontheists. A list of nontheists would be of interest to readers who are also nontheists, or those interested in religion, philosophy, or the sociology of belief. It doesn't have to interest everyone to have a point, or to be kept in the encyclopedia.
    • To help understand why this list does have a point, I should say something regarding the reason the nontheist list was started in the first place. About a year ago, the List of atheists was in a sorry state, with virtually no sourcing, and little regard for inclusion criteria. There were people listed whose only profession of "atheism" had been some disparaging comment about the church, or about the Bible. Numerous celebrities , such as Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, or Angelina Jolie (gee, which of these is not like the other? :-) would be repeatedly added by various editors, with no care taken to research what their (ir)religious beliefs actually were, or using unreliable and highly speculative sources. Since that time, several other editors and I have tried to turn the list around into something manageable, well-sourced, and free of potential WP:BLP violations. The occasional unsourced "drive-by" additions are still made, but they're usually reverted quickly by one of the editors (I must commend Ian Rose in particular, who has tirelessly and uncompromisingly kept up this valuable maintenance activity).
    • A speed bump was encountered, however, when some editors (including RS) wished to include persons who had clearly stated that they did not believe in a God, but had not been identified as an atheist by themselves or a reliable source. RS has maintained that all people who don't believe in God are atheists. And I agree that they are atheists by one definition of the word. However, I have maintained that such persons should not be included, primarily becase (1) many people consider an atheist only to be someone who outright denies the existence of God, and (2) atheist has a history of being used in a pejorative sense, making it unacceptable (primarily for WP:BLP reasons) for editors here to identify someone as an atheist without citing a reliable source that does so.
    • A compromise was found by SwitChar in the form of List of nontheists, where such people could be listed without making a POV ruling in favor of a particular definition of atheist, and without potentially violating WP:BLP. RS has objected to this, and suggested a merger of the two lists at one point, but his position has not gained consensus support among editors of the lists. Since its creation, List of nontheists has served as a valuable repository for listing persons whose position on the existence of God cannot be definitively classified as atheistic or agnostic, but which can be classified as nontheistic. Several of the people listed there have been moved to the other lists when sources were found documenting more specific positions, so the List of nontheists has helped with the development of the other lists. So no, it's not a pointless list. It serves a purpose, and has done so admirably. Nick Graves 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Given those points of history, and reasoned arguments, I definitely support keeping the list, provided that the list returns to the state I described (and it sounds like it will). SamBC(talk) 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nick, let me give you an example: Let say X do not believe in God. X doesn't consider himself an atheist because of your reasons. He also considers nontheism to be a synonym for atheism. By this logic, he will not consider himself a nontheist because he considers nontheism to be just another term for atheism! If persons who had clearly stated that they did not believe in a God cannot be included on List of atheists or List of agnostics, then they should not be included on any lists. Their beliefs (or lack of it) are disputed. I think we need a seperate list for people whose beliefs are disputed. Do we have any such list? RS1900 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • This does raise the interesting point of WP:BLP concerns. It's worth considering caution in the cases of living people. It's also true that using a statement of "I don't believe in a personal god" to infer "I am a nontheist" may be seen as synthesis. I maintain that there's nothing improper with the existence of the list, but these concerns must be clearly addressed. For example, the synthesis issue may be alleviated if the text of the page makes it clear that the use of "nontheist" in the title is a sort of shorthand, and that people included on the list may have simply made a statement that clearly implies nontheism (with a description of what sort of statement that may be). SamBC(talk) 06:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The word 'nontheist' is clearly defined for the list and it's not an extraordinary definition. There is no original research in using a word to mean its definition. If people have claimed to not believe in God then they have claimed to be nontheists. That's not inference, that is just the definition of the word nontheist. It's not original research to rephrase a source in different words. And since the people in the list are self-described in that way, there shouldn't be a BLP concern either, so long as we are absolutely certain that they really did say what our source says they said, and they said it publicly so that it is common knowledge. Obviously we don't want to list anyone here who doesn't want to be thought of as a nontheist, but is surely not true for people who publicly claim to not believe in God. (It's not so surely true for atheism, unfortunately.)-- Lilwik 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The advantage of nontheist over atheist, as RS wants, is that nontheist is a strictly defined word, explicit in its meaning, which has never been pejorative. It does not encounter the same WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues as the list of atheists would if we were to include people such as Andy Partridge. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep both Both Nontheism and List of nontheists should not be deleted. If a guy says,'I don't believe in God', he may or may not be an atheist. An Agnostic can also say 'Listen guys, I don't believe in God'. For example, here is the view of American economist Milton Friedman , the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1976.

“I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected.[1]

Here, Dr. Freidman has clearly said "I do not ‘believe in’ God" and also explained why he is not an atheist and why he considered himself an agnostic. The quote from Milton Friedman illustrates precisely why we cannot categorize someone as an atheist just because they do not believe in a deity. It is not enough for someone to simply say they don't believe in God in order to identify them as an atheist, since they might hold a position similar to that of Friedman's. Please read the argument between Nick Graves and me on the talk page of List of nontheists before making any comment here. Before even I was confused. Merzul was also confused. Nick Graves clearly explained why we need the List of nontheists. Please see the talk page of List of nontheists. Jai Raj K 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Jai Raj K is a sockpuppet of RS1900. I am still gathering my evidence, but I thought that should be noted here. In any case, Jai Raj K is a very new account with few other edits unreleated to this AfD. Nick Graves 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Nick Graves, you are a lier and a blackmailer. If Jai Raj K and I were the same person why would I ever vote 'Keep'? I am not Jai Raj K and I have no relations with him. Both the article Nontheism and List of nontheists should be deleted. RS1900 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article, Delete list. I grok the distinction being made between non-theist and a-theist. The list is just inviting trouble. JJL 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you specify what trouble you think it is inviting? Nick Graves 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Given that this term does not seem to be often used by the people to whom it is applied--the examples cited in the list don't seem to have been of people quoted as saying "I am a nontheist" and the lack of dictionary references to the term makes me doubt there'll be much by way of secondary sources--putting people on the list could be OR. Note, the nontheism article says "(nontheism) can be applied to..." which sounds weasally to me: It's not clear to me that the statement "If X is an athesist, then X is a nontheist" is true by definition. Putting people on this list will therefore be an iffy proposition. The second paragraph of nontheism does make a stronger statement that indeed all atheists are nontheists whether they like that label or not, but I don't yet believe that people will agree with that. My experience has been that people like to choose their labels very precisely in this matter (hence the profusion of labels that those pressing for nontheism are trying to unite--nontheism appears to be the "new atheism"). So, I see membership on this list being a contentious issue as someone argues for example that X is only an ignostic and not a nontheist. JJL 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both as per Nick Graves; it is also utterly ridiculous to claim an article on a term is OR when Google finds 72,900 hits for said term. The OED is useful, yes, but we can hardly limit ourselves to its entry; the term "transgender" for example did also take years to make it into it, and yet it existed, and thousands of people identified as such. Do however check the list as to whether those people did indeed call themselfes "nontheist" or where they have been called that in publications (in the later case, I want to know who called them that, too). Lists are always problematic in that regard, but if properly checked, they are most useful, too. -- John Smythe 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In the case of a list like this, we wouldn't want to list people just because publications call them nontheists, no matter what publication says it. WP:BLP says that we must be very careful to not hurt the living people that we talk about, so we must only call people nontheists if they call themselves that publicly. (Of course, they don't have to use the actual word. Nontheist is just shorthand for a person who doesn't believe in God. We could call the list List of people who don't believe in God, but there's no need for something so long and awkward when we have the perfectly good word nontheist which is in the dictionary.) -- Lilwik 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both as per Nick Graves; The beliefs of Bishop Spong and his school of thought are influential and have no other home central on Wikipedia.

-- Consanescerion 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC) — Consanescerion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Strong keep Nontheism, all atheists are nontheists, but not all non-theists are atheists, the concepts are closely related, but not synonymous. Weakish keep List of nontheists afterall most of the articles on religious positions have associated lists of notable proponents, I think those lists should really stand or fall together. – ornis⚙ 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both, The problem is that some people don't neatly fit in categories like "atheist," "agnostic," or things like that, so a more general category is necessary. Currently the terms "nontheist" and "nontheism" get a combined hit total on Google of 130,000 hits[2], so people are using those terms to describe things. The "non-" prefix leads to a rather obvious definition, so I can understand why that, and many other "non-" words, are left out of many dictionaries. Also, the terms "non-theist" and "non-theistic" are both in the 2007 Oxford English Dictionary.[3] And for those who argue that "nontheist = atheist" that's just not true. Theism includes a belief in a personal god, so deists are not theists, but since they do believe in a god, deists are clearly not atheists either. Simply put, both nominated articles are for a larger, more general group that is not interchangeable with any of its subgroups, thus I believe that keeping them is necessary. -- HiEv 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why keep both? I think both article and lists should be deleted. Please look at my arguments. Both the article and lists are useless. Deleted them. RS1900 06:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this still going? I think RS has gotten very involved with this. I think after reading the above I must stay with my keep vote. Sorry RS.JJJ999 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete, per DGG. Pete.Hurd 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep the nominator obviously doesn't know what he or she is talking about. It's true RS. I wish you luck understanding it. Be well, Greg Bard 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for the article and Ambivalent about the list.
  • The word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. IRRELEVANT
  • There are no reliable sources which clearly define nontheism. NOT TRUE
  • The definition of nontheists in the List of nontheists is incorrect NOT TRUE
  • This is a definition of atheist. It is "a definition", but not "the definition" (read the article).
  • Many people consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. The unpublished opinions of "many people" do not constitute a WP:RS, are not WP:V, and are irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If you have verifiable, sourced information stating that "many people" consider "nontheism" and "atheism" to be synonymous, then it should be added the article to provide balance. But since there are clearly reliable sources that make a distinction between the two terms, the opinion that they are the same, even if verifiable, is not valid grounds for deletion of the entire article.
  • To call someone a nontheist can be problematic. They may them self reject such label. POSSIBLY (see my comment below)
To the people recommending deletion: Did you actually read any of the sources referenced in the article? Nontheism is clearly notable as a concept distinct from Atheism in actual use. The original nomination noted that "nontheism" was not mentioned in any dictionaries prior to 2007. What? Is Wikipedia a dictionary? Is a dictionary entry really a prerequisite for an encyclopedia article? If so, someone should get busy deleting the thousands of articles that don't have a corresponding entry in a pre-2007 dictionary. Anyway, the fact theat "non-theism" and "non-theist" are both in the 2007 edition of the dictionary (OED) renders that point moot with regard to the article.
I will concede that the "the list" is a bit contentious because few, if any, of the people on it would (have) consider(ed) themselves "nontheists", even though their verifiable statements regarding their (lack of) belief would fit the definition. However, simply because a particular term is relatively new does not prevent it from being retroactively applied to those who fit the definition. For example, "homosexual" (used as an adjective) was not widely used (and never printed) before 1869, yet is often used to describe same-sex relations that took place during the Greco-Roman era, despite the fact that no one in ancient Greece or Rome would have self-described his or her same-sex behavior as "homosexual" (the term didn't exist!). Another, more recent example: the term "African American" seems to be the preferred scholarly term for Americans of sub-Saharan African descent (generally the descendants of slaves). Despite the relatively recent origins of this term, it is nonetheless now used to describe historical figures who would have been much more likely to consider themselves "negros", "colored", or "black" (depending on the time period/location). In addition, the term "African American" is clearly not used to describe all Americans of African descent, such as white immigrants from South Africa (is Dave Matthews African American?), those from northern Africa (who would likely be called Arab American), and recent African immigrants (from Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.) regardless of skin color. Although "African American" in its strictest etymological sense should include all Americans of African descent, its actual usage is much more nuanced.
Similarly, "nontheism", in its strictest etymological sense might appear to be synonymous with "atheism", but anyone who takes the time to investigate and read the article and sources should realize that the terms are distinct (and both notable) in actual usage. Personal opinion as to whether nontheism "deserves" to be distinct from atheism is irrelevant POV. The original nomination for deletion is full of self-contradictory statements that don't reflect Wikipedia policy. Again, I am confused by the bizarre assertion that non-inclusion in a "pre-2007" dictionary is a valid criteria for claiming that a term is WP:OR and not verifiable. It seems that, despite the mention of the terms "nontheism" and "nontheist" (as distinct from atheism) in several reliable secondary sources and the latest edition of the world's preeminent English dictionary, we are being encouraged to delete an article because the nominating editor doesn't like the term.
RS1900, you should have actually read WP:OR and WP:V (or at least made sure that you understood them)before asserting that the arbitrary threshold for an article's inclusion in Wikipedia is mention in a notable pre-2007 dictionary. Your nomination makes no sense and your reasoning is flawed. The article talk page would have been an appropriate place to share yout concerns. Recommending deletion based on your personal opinion is a bit rash. Please retract your nomination for deletion immediately. Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment.Addendum to my comments above (upon a closer reading of the arguments)
RS1900, why do you continually repeat "Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007" as an argument for deletion (and an assertion or WP:OR(?)) when you yourself acknowledged that both terms are included in the current OED? What does 2007 have to do with it? I'm sure you are aware that many recent terms (neologisms) are not yet included in the dictionary, but are still notable. Also, new terms have to be well-documented in notable print sources before dictionary editors would ever consider inclusion (i.e., there is a long delay between a term's initial use and its eventual inclusion in a dictionary). Therefore, the fact that both terms are included in the current OED is a strong indication that their use was validated in print sources prior to 2007 (since 2007 seems to be an important watershed year for you in determining the Wikipedia-worthiness of an article). How could you possibly think that including these terms is WP:OR when they are used in secondary sources and the Oxford English Dictionary (past editions are irrelevant)? Yet you still wrote "Nontheism is not defined yet" after admitting that "non-theism" is listed in the current OED. How does this make sense? What, exactly, is your argument for deletion? By the way, the hyphenation simply reflects a typical variation between British and American spelling that dictionaries rarely note explicitly. Many hyphenated words/terms in the OED would not be hyphenated by a typical American writer, and hyphenation differences in compound words are not an indication that the two terms are separate (any more than "realize" and "realise" can be considered "different words"). A simple redirect could fix this "problem" unless you seriously believe that a definition of "non-theism" does not apply to "nontheism". Is that what you are saying?
Also, regarding: "can you find a single source where Nontheism is not connected to atheism?" Nobody is denying that the two terms are connected; this is not a rational argument. And many of the sources listed (and a quick academic database search will reveal even more) make a distinction between the two terms. As long as they are distinct, it is irrelevant that they are "always" connected. To paraphrase comments above, Protestantism is always connected to Christianity, and the Sun is always connected to the solar system, yet no one would ever suggest (hopefully) that Protestantism should be deleted because it is "just another form of Christianity" and "there is already an article for Christianity" or that Sun should be merged with Solar system becasue the definition of one is inseparable from the other.
DGG, your recommendation for deletion seems to contradict your stated "inclusionist" self-identification. The article could possibly be improved, but does not violate policy, so why delete?
The fact that people here are debating the subtle and complex differences between theism vs. deism, agnosticism, nontheism, and atheism, etc. (and whether all people who are X are also Y, but not necessarily Z, etc.) is a good indication that the article should not be deleted. It is a sourced article that could actually be helpful to people trying to understand the differences between X,Y, and Z as systems of belief (or definitions of non-belief) that may appear synonymous. Anyone is welcome to try to improve the article (no article is perfect), but deleting it is not appropriate. It has been thoroughly establishged that (a) Nontheism is distinct from, yet connected to atheism,(b)the term has been documented in reliable sources, and (c) it is even in the dictionary (which really shouldn't matter at all). — DIEGO talk 20:10, 1 October 2007 (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.