Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative and positive atheism


 * 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Negative and positive atheism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The phrases "positive atheism" and "negative atheism" have been used from time to time in various sources, but - as the article admits - to mean different things. This is not a coherent topic that exists in high-quality independent sources, but a synthetic one, composed of original research and synthesis. It starts with an assertion unsupported by its source, and an irrelevant (original) diagram, and does not improve. As this is not a real, notable, topic the article should be deleted. Alexbrn talk 21:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleteas unecessary duplication: the distinction is covered in Atheism.TheLongTone (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and TheLongTone. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve It's a meaningful distinction in works like those written by Flew and Martin and plenty of others. The diagnosis given in the nomination is applicable to a wide variety of philosophical topics: take something like nominalism or naturalism and you could easily say that it isn't a "coherent topic", because philosophical language is often an infuriating exercise in polysemy. The terminology and the definitions used don't matter so much as the concept and the distinctions drawn: the concept is discussed in a number of philosophically-informed works on atheism from both a theistic and atheistic perspective. The fact that the concept of negative and positive atheism is not universally adhered to is not really a problem: we should include any reliable sources that object to 'negative/positive' formulation. The idea that the article ought to not exist because it is covered in Atheism doesn't convince me much either: the fact that the distinction is discussed and disputed (for instance, by John Shook in The God Debates, and a number of other places) can easily be tucked into the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tom Morris. The topic is notable, even if the usage of the terminology is ambiguous and "slippery."  There is too much material present (and too much potential for expansion) for the topic to exist merely as a section of the atheism main article. Xoloz (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But "it" is not notable because there is no source which defines what "it" is well. Which is why off-topic sources are being bent into service. Alexbrn talk 08:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; I agree with Alexbrn's concerns about it being a synthetic topic, and much of the detailed content is bordering on synthesis too. If one source distinguishes between about positive/negative atheism, another source distinguishes between strong/weak atheism, and a third implicit/explicit atheism, then the best thing to do would be to handle them in the Atheism article rather than labelling them all "negative and positive atheism". bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tom Morris and (even more emphatically) per Xoloz.— S Marshall T/C 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per and nom. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & Improve per - Definitely something that should be kept IMO.  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I like this sort of AFD because I can wonder whatever was going on in the nominator's mind. Anyway, the topic is notable because it is discussed in depth in multiple independent reliable secondary sources (or whatever I am supposed to say). Thincat (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it isn't - which is why the article is scraping around for sources and trying to make it seem like they apply ("Positive and negative atheism are distinct from the philosopher George H. Smith's less-well-known categories of implicit and explicit atheism" - unsourced). This is original research / synthesis. Alexbrn talk 08:07, 4 May 2014 (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.