Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist's Wager (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Pascal's Wager. Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheist's Wager
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominating on behalf of DreamGuy, who was unable to complete the nomination due to a Twinkle failure. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Original nomination was: Article is a mess with no attempt at demonstrating notability of any sort. No reliable sources. Completely original research. Existence of article with no citations proving it's important is basically POV pushing by inclusion for no reason, and its inclusion further attracted a Criticism section with criticism by uncited people pushing their own view. There's no salvage for this without demonstration that this has any reason to be a separate article from Pascal's Wager. The problems identified during the first deletion discussion have not been addressed in the many years since, suggesting the Keep voters were doing so on POV grounds on not encyclopedic standards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Pascal's Wager. There are various iterations of an "Atheist's Wager" in print, and this article alludes most strongly to ones by Michael Martin and Richard Dawkins, but without tying the ideas to the authors. All of these are direct responses or reactions to Pascal's Wager, and can be characterized as criticisms of the premises of Pascal's Wager. bd2412  T 14:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge based on existence of book reference. --Cyber cobra (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete One book mentioning the subject is not enough to make it notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Pascal's Wager, does not seem to be independently notable enough to warrant own article, but a redirect should suffice. Icalanise (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge back Pascal's Wager. That would put all the information in one place so readers don't have to skip between the two articles.  Some of the detail could also be trimmed from this article but that is another issue.Wolfview (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. Merging a lot of unnotable information into Pascal's Wager is not good wikipractice.  If however it is merged, only the single claim that is sourced should be merged, even though that source alone does not make the topic notable. N2e (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Pascal's Wager. The article subject is clearly notable, considering the merge arguments and references here (in this AfD and in the article) and all the Keep arguments and references in the first AfD here, which was properly closed as Keep (included herein by reference). This AfD should not determine what content gets merged, as that is a normal editing process. In fact, this issue could have been handled with a merge nomination, rather than an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2010 (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.