Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athorism


 * 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 delete. Target of any redirect left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Athorism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Since the prod was removed, we're doing this the slow and painful way. I'm afraid I can not see how this satisfies the notability criteria here. This is a neologism or clever rhetorical device employed by Richard Dawkins. But we aren't going to have an article for every clever concept these evolutionary biologist come up with. If we do, as one editor put it, then fossil rabbits in the precambrian should be the first to have an article. Merzul 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - much as I love the idea it pains me to agree that this does not deserve its own article. Sophia  20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - I think that any ideas here that are of substance could be incorporated into the article on parody religion giving that article some context as to why some of these parody religions have been invented. --Merzul 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I suppose so. Still, since you mentioned it I wish I could look up those fossile rabbits... but I won't find them in the Wikipedia. --Rick MILLER 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you can :) --Merzul 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * speedy redirect I have now dumped this entire section without much modification into Parody_religion. Would anyone object to replacing this with a redirect to that page. If there are no objections, then since Rick MILLER is the main contributor of this article, I think we can close the AfD. --Merzul 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - athorism is a humourous encapsulisation of an important idea, but I don't think it needs its own page. Especially a POV page that labels (by implication) religion as insane.  --Plumbago 07:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Another neologism by Dawkins, Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, was AfDed twice, the first being Merge into The God Delusion, and the second being kept. Without taking sides in the latter (I did in the former), I think these discussions may be useful to clarify the issues for other commenters here.
 * And no objection here to Merzul's redirect suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be unambiguous, consider my position to be delete and redirect per Merzul. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Where do we draw the line? Is it only major philosophical concepts that get there own article? If so, what qualifies the concepts validity on the wikipedia? I think the article should be kept on the basis that as the author(s) presumably felt this concept warrented it's own article then who are we to disagree over what the importance of the philosphy is? If we cut this article, then we may as well give up on wikipedia and the whole idea of creating an informative source of information. 90.152.12.130 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - we can't have a separate article on every idea that Richard Dawkins dreams up over breakfast one day, much as his ideas may be better than most. Metamagician3000 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect - Merzul's suggestion of a redirect is sufficient Demong 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry for all the edits, messed up my comment... will be using the preview button a lot more in the future Demong 01:54, 16 April 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.