Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irrational Atheist


 * 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. Albeit narrowly, consensus is that the coverage of this book doesn't quite rise to the level of notability. While many here think it does, some comments are not much more than mere assertions of "it's notable", which carries less weight than most "delete" opinions that discuss the level of coverage.  Sandstein  04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irrational Atheist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Putting an article I created back in 2008 up for deletion. I still think it's a excellent book for its type, but as its so powerfully written its hard to provide a representative summary without the article acting in part as an attack page against atheists. Two editors also think most of the sources are not reliable so this might be another reason to delete (please see articles talk page) I personally think the sources are fine and the book is notable, so this nomination is only at weak delete strength. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reason given by the nominator is spurious, and looks suspiciously like a WP:POINTY attack on other editors. Also, whether the nominator considers the book "excellent" and "powerfully written" is beside the point. The point is, does the book fulfil the criteria specified in WP:NB? I reckon not. It's been reviewed in a couple of religious blogs, but there is no evidence that it has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works..." Where are the reliable sources reviewing the book? Where has it been noticed other than by a narrow-minded clique of like-minded people? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh! No attack is intended on the two other editors, I disagree with them but still think their view on the sources is credible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification – I didn’t mean that you were attacking those particular editors, but that by making the extremely curious assertion that the book is so powerfully written that a full article about it would be "an attack page against atheists" you seem to dismiss all atheist editors who might pass this way, and it looks as if you are trying to make some sort of nice point that actually has nothing to do with the matter in hand. How can it be impossible to write a balanced article about a book, whatever that book says, or however well or badly written it is? The persuasiveness or otherwise of the book’s arguments has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, which should concern itself purely with whether the book passes the WP:GNG and WP:NB guidelines. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didnt mean to imply most atheists would be offended, but a few might especially ones who are sensitive due to living in the Bible belt or similar areas. I agree theres a borderline case the article fails WP:NB but IMO it passes GNG hence my vote is only weak delete. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Speaking as an unoffended atheist: sufficient encyclopedic treatment of a high profile book. I personally don't care much for the "Every Book Gets an Article" approach, but it's reasonably well accepted among the community and this page is no better and no worse than bargeloads of OTHER STUFF that EXISTS. The book is to be found in 118 libraries listing on WorldCat and that's more than enough to certify that this is more than an itty-bitty self-published title, but rather a sufficient subject for encyclopedic treatment. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, significantly covered by sufficiently reliable sources for the purpose. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the grouping of positive reviews without clarifying what position they take, is POV pushing. I fixed that in this edit. Otherwise it is fine and is certainly notable. Sadads (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Putting this article up for deletion has been on my list of things to do for a while now. The above keep comments don't get to the heart of the issue--this book doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:BK.  There are 3 reviews, but all of them are for limited (not general) audiences, and WP:BK states that in order to qualify on reviews alone, at least one and preferably more must be for a general audience.  I have argued that at least one of those doesn't even qualify as a legitimate source, as it's hosted on a blog, not a news source.  One reference states that it was part of the 2007 NOR Christmas recommendations for NOR, but that article recommends several dozen other books, so the coverage is hardly signoficant. The only other reference isn't even about this book but about where the name comes from.  As such, this book has not met our notability criteria, and must be deleted (unless, of course, others find more references).  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I'm not sure that they'll check back in, if they do, I'd like to request the keep people who are saying "it's notable enough for an encyclopedia" to please explain how it meets either of the relevant notability guidelines--WP:GNG or WP:BK. To simply assert that it is notable is not enough.  As a side note, that it's in 118 libraries is also insufficient, as that's not one of our criteria (and, to be honest, I'd argue that only 118 libraries actually practically proves a lack of notability, as that is a tiny number in my opinion--and the very fact that we disagree shows why that's not enough to verify notability).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Qwyrxian's points are far more convincing than the bald assertions of notability from the keep side here. This is a book of very limited circulation (only 118 libaries!) and has not been subject of reviews independent of the Christian media. The Christian media will, understandably, endorse the content of the book and so can't be considered independent sources for the subject of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really well established. I counted 138 copies in WorldCat, as opposed to over 3200 for The God Delusion, (or 1869 for the Kitty Kelley biography of Oprah.) No scholarly works or news hits that would be of use either. Sven Manguard  Talk</b>  23:59, 13 October 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.