Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irrational Atheist (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 no consensus. Voters did not agree whether sources are reliable. Pretty usual situation, one can try again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The Irrational Atheist
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the author is a notable figure, this book itself doesn't appear notable. It was recommended by the National Review Online... that's pretty much it. The rest of the page is just information about the book from Amazon.FPTI (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. FPTI (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, have found these reviews - Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists in New Oxford Review - "What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language .. Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration."", Dawkins’ Debunkers A Reading List  in Catholic Answers - "If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book.", Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism at Creation.com - "The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism.", so close to meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * tepid keep on the basis of reviews found by User:Coolabahapple Also, it has gotten itself talked about, google news search:, a little.  Not a slam dunk, but we do keep books that get multiple reviews in RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, even noting that since the author was (is?) a contributor to wnd.com, substantially all of the references to that site are just to his bio. BUT, that shouldn't make a big difference anyways, because Wikipedia doesn't consider WND a news site, even if Google does. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, y'all are right, this ought to be kept. I'm gonna do my best to beef it up a little bit.FPTI (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I've worked on this article a lot, mostly removing advertising but really there isn't much meat to be had. The book is basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles. I believe the previous afd decision was to delete as well. Suppafly (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Book by notable author does not make book automatically notable (WP:INHERIT); from what I gather from a quick Google search, book doesn't seem notable by itself. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability as a work separate fro its author. Artw (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Praise reviews from clearly non-neutral websites do not count. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Just to be clear. The "neutrality" of the media that review a book are irrelevant.  As is the fact that the book was a "hit piece"; many significant books are "hit pieces."    The question at issue here is whether the book is notable, and the usual gauge is whether it is discussed in reliable sources, which includes the sources brought above by Coolabahapple.  3 such reviews have been the usual standard for keeping a book page.  But here, in addition to the 3 reviews above - which could be added to the page, there has been discussion of the book in reliable media, some of which is now on the page.  I fail to see policy-based reasons for deletion here, although I could imagine an argument for a redirect to the author's page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The neutrality likely refers to the National Review, which is currently seen as a RS when used with attribution, although it is frequently challenged. Now I will say that the source is light and is actually an article where "regular contributors and friends" list recommendations for Christmas gifts rather than a list of recommendations by the magazine/website itself. This means that what we need to question is whether or not the source is heavy enough to be seen as more than trivial. I've used articles like this as a source in the past, but I've often had them challenged as trivial sources so I rarely rely on them for notability. The general rule of thumb is that general shopping recommendation lists don't (summer, holiday, etc) but you can use official end of year lists and recommendation lists that give a substantial enough writeup. So the question here is whether or not the writeup is substantial enough. The mention in the article is two sentences long, so it runs that thin line of usable and unusable. It helps that it was a recommendation by a notable person, since that gives it extra oomph. Offhand I'm inclined to see it as usable though.
 * However I need to note that the Sun Herald is a WP:TRIVIAL source since it's only mentioned once in passing. I haven't looked at Coolhabapple's reviews above, but this does need to be taken into consideration since this means that the article has only two reliable and notability giving, but fairly light sources currently on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and then Redirect as there are some reviews but it's still questionable at best and, instead, it's sufficient to therefore have the information listed at the author's article. Nothing for particular independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Just when atheists thought it was safe to enter the public square, a book like this comes along. The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day is not a work of Christian apologetics. It is, instead, a merciless deconstruction of atheist thought—or what passes for thought. That’s the gimmick, if you will, of the book: Day does not accept a single assertion made by any one of the “Unholy Trinity”—Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens—without first pinning it to a sheet of wax as in a seventh-grade science class, dissecting it until there’s nothing left but a case for anti-vivisection legislation. ... Nevertheless, whether you embrace Day’s theology or toss it, there is no avoiding the cumulative force of the author’s counterassaults or the sting of his wit when it comes to the true focus of the book—atheism’s continuing love affair with nonsense. In short, The Irrational Atheist is a blast and will no doubt occasion many a late-night debate. And don’t forget to thank your village atheist when you get the chance. Like heretics before them, atheists are inspiring a steady flow of truly inspired Christian polemic, which may prove to win the world for Christ in ways that must send shivers down the collective spine of that most “Unholy Trinity.”"  The article notes: "In The Irrational Atheist, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Vox Day uses logic and facts (not theology) to refute the 'unholy trinity' of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language -- the rhetorical fireworks with which he takes on the new atheists. High spirits and clever phrasing provoke continual chuckles, as for example when he remarks that not since the craze for Marx and Freud 'has there been so much enthusiasm about the non-existence of God,' and that this new evangelism is directed at 'atheists whose lack of faith is weak.' He employs mock praise, too, as in, 'Hitchens and Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine.' Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's 'incessant shell games,' Harris's 'exercises in self-parody,' and Hitchens's 'epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration.'"  The article notes: The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day (Benbella Books, 2008) If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book. Day (a non-denominational Protestant) doesn’t limit his pointed rebuttals to Dawkins—he also takes aim at Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. Do you want to know how many people died in the Spanish Inquisition (a topic the atheists regularly raise)? Fewer than the state of Texas executes per year. How many people died under atheist regimes (a topic the atheists try to sweep under the rug)? About 150 million. How many wars in history were religious wars (since the atheists claim that religion is a major cause of war)? About 7 percent of history’s approximately 1800 significant conflicts. And so on, from Socrates to the European Union. In a couple of places the book is unnecessarily crude, and Day’s sarcastic humor can become tiresome. He includes a chapter combining computer-game concepts and lingo with theology which is only peripherally related to the book’s central purpose.   The article notes: "Vox Day does not claim to be a scholar, yet, except in the area of theology, he holds his own against atheist intellectuals. He is not content to refute them only, he mocks them relentlessly. Day’s writing is filled with insults and delightfully sarcastic wit, and his footnotes are as likely to add on an extra insult as to cite a source. He makes his victims look ridiculous; however, as delightful as it is to hear him call Dawkins a ‘supercilious old fart’ (p. 68), sometimes after several pages of reading how stupid a particular argument is, one forgets the serious point he was trying to make. This makes Day’s book an entertaining volume, but one that the reader might take less seriously than other criticisms of the ‘new atheists’. That said, The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism."</li> <li> The article notes: "Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims that religion causes war, that religious people are more apt to commit crime and that the Bible and other sacred texts are unreliable and fictitious."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Irrational Atheist to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Notability (books) notes: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." The Irrational Atheist clearly meets the notability guidelines for books because it received reviews in First Things, New Oxford Review, Catholic Answers, and the Journal of Creation. Praise reviews from clearly non-neutral websites do not count. – the sources are all reliable. That the publications have political leanings do not make them unreliable for being reviews of what the publication's reviewers had to say about the book and sufficient to count as a review under Notability (books). The book is basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles. – I don't think that the book's being "basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles" is a valid argument for deletion. As long as the book has received at least two reviews as required by Notability (books), it is notable.  Book by notable author does not make book automatically notable (WP:INHERIT); from what I gather from a quick Google search, book doesn't seem notable by itself. – this argument does not refute Coolabahapple's sources presented in the AfD discussion.  no evidence of notability as a work separate fro its author. – the reviews from four publications analyzing the book demonstrate independent notability.  Cunard (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). North America1000 12:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BKCRIT criteria #1 as per sources presented above by ; the book has been reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources. North America1000 01:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reliable reviews, the three i included, and also the First Things review added above by . Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per references above. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (same as another AFD) However, if the above references and content is good enough to defend the article against deletion, then it must be good enough to include in the article. Conversely, if it is not good enough for the article it is not good enough to defend it against deletion. I suggest that the relevant contributor/s above add the referenced content to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
 * I get it. (I started in Wikipedia in 2008, but have had a few gaps.)  My point is people sometimes put a huge effort into an AFD defense so why not put the effort directly into the article ?   And thence improve the article and fend off the AFD at the same time.  I was trying to encourage, for example  to do so directly.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like 's work in performing source searching; it does take time and effort. Then, of course, after refuting a deletion nomination after said source searches and typing out the post, it takes even more time to then work on the article. Pitch in. North America1000 14:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. I see no reviews which both cover this in depth and are published in reliable sources. Sources like Creation Magazine are unreliable for almost anything, nevermind a book review for a book about atheism. And before you say "they're reliable for their own opinions", yes, but we can't base an encyclopedia article on opinions in biased sources. Publisher Weekly sounds like a good one, but it's a brief mention, not a real review. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in 'Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...', 'According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...,' or 'Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...'." The guideline notes that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It does not require the reliable sources to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective".  Cunard (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...". "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." A generalization that biased sources can be reliable says nothing about this context being among the contexts in which they are reliable. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources cover this with any sort of depth that we expect for a stand alone article on a book. In fact the reliability of the sources that do cover coudn't be worse for reviewing a book on this topic. Not to mention that it makes writing a neutral article impossible. AIR corn (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per references above. tahc chat 23:29, 24 June 2016 (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.