Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbelief

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. —fetch ·comms 00:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelief

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell the central thesis of this article is bunk (that there is an school of 'unbelief' that has developed since the 18th century) and it's all original research on that basis. Would be more suited to a blog. We are not a publisher of original research. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, it's an essay with no sources. Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have stated my position on the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
Comment. The subject would appear to be covered already at agnosticism and freethought. These may be redirect or disambiguation targets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In earlier, deleted, edits, this used to be just a plain redirect to belief … when it wasn't an article about a band, that is. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content and redirect title to Belief. bd2412 T 15:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwikified and unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous WP:OR in the form of someone's opinions. No prospect of anything verifiable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restart. A lot of the material is actually covered in scepticism. Most of the article could be taken to wikiversity and page actually about unbelief developed. The admitted serious flaws in the current page should not restrict the development of a more suitable page on the topic.Harrypotter (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Harrypotter, can you point to any reliable sources provided significant coverage of "unbelief" as a distinct concept?
- - Answer, please check other wikipedia language pages (I've just added some more!)Harrypotter (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ?????????? Wikipedia (in any language) is a not reliable source. moreover, Sourcing requirements between language versions of wikipedia differ, so the fact that other languages have an article provides no support for the idea we have one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moreover, the ones I've checked are equally unsourced and many are tagged as original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am afraid I disagree with you - the fact that other languages have an article provides some support for the idea we have one, but maybe not sufficient. Looking through the pages, aside from the Russian page, please could you detail which ones are tagged as original research. Perhaps more pertinent is that some of them link to infidel on the English wikipedia, although there is also a page on kafir and kofer which would also be relevant. perhaps a solution might be having a redirect to one of these?Harrypotter (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with 100% certainty that the Swedish, Danish, Spanish and Dutch iw-links you added are corresponding articles on the term "infidel", they have nothing to do with "unbelief". Therefore I have a suspicion that the rest of the languages in the group of iws you added (which by the way corresponds to the already existing iws to the infidel article) may very well be equivalents to "infidel" as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I disagree with you - that's nice but wikipedia is not a reliable source, I'm not sure what needs to be said? The bottom line is that the article *we* have is unsourced, and without evidence that it *can* be sourced, it will be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please could you at least take the trouble to explain why you reject the suggestion of a redirect page. I would be very grateful if you could do this. I feel that in the interests of civility this would be a big step forward. Thanking you very much in advacnce.Harrypotter (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrypotter, did Cameron reject the suggestion of a redirect? What I believe he is getting at is that unless significant coverage in reliable sources according to the policy at WP:RS can be demonstrated, this article will be deleted. Nuujinn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research without the virtue of references to support it--Utinomen (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the word is actually used above all in chatolic countries but spreading somewhere else in last decades. I think wrong whether delete or include in other articles incoherent with its meaning. The specification is always an encyclopedic worth and not a disvalue. --Barrrower (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. Cite sources. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia has articles about topics, not an article for every word in the language. This article is unreferenced and not about any topic in any way distinct from articles such as skepticism. Where it rambles on about religious unbelief, its topic is covered by other articles such as agnosticism and atheism--JimWae (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See please: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850612en.html Candice--217.202.248.0 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is correct and recently improved in its incipit. It is perfectly in accordance with wikipedia's criteria. --Iserden (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this article started out as a barely intelligible personal essay. It is still completely unsourced & unfocussed. I do not see a single improvement other than it is slightly more readable. The lede is unstable because nobody can figure out what the topic is. Not every word in a dictionary merits an encyclopedia article.--JimWae (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree. Unbelief is not a word but a "category" born some decades ago that concerns the contemporary expression mainly used to indicate the refusal of religious belief. I discovered that in Italy exists a review entitled NONCREDO (I unbelieve)[1]. If we follow your point of view, I'm afraid, wikipedia should became only copy and repetition of old encyclopedias. The value of it, on the contrary, is to be a "contemporary" encyclopedia, better of the paper ones because more complete and rich. --Iserden (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No encyclopedia, old or new, print or digital, has an article for every word in the language. That is what dictionaries are for. This article has no sources and no topic to focus on -- other than what is already covered in other sourced articles. The 1985 papal document never defines "unbelief" nor does it ever distinguishes unbelief from atheism in any way. I note that the 2 votes below are by editors with less than 80 edits each, and in the case of one editor at least are mostly just formatting, unsourced opinions stated in poor English, and/or edits to See also sections which often were just links to this article. @Iserden: As the creator of this article, it is understandable that you would defend it. However, the problems it has are not being addressed - neither with edits nor with arguments here. Does unbelief include both disbelief and nonbelief (neither of which have articles)? Does it require some object (such as a deity, a moral code, or a religion?), or is it generalized skepticism and uncertainty? If it does require an object, there already are articles for atheism, agnosticism, nontheism and irreligion. Additionally, roughly 80% of the sentences still have major syntactic flaws - like they were written by someone without a grasp of the English language. --JimWae (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*keep~~. I had some doubt because the article is a little pletoric and confused in some its parts. Now I decided to maintain, but it is to be improved. --Baboshed (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC) ~~*Keep~~. --Londers (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you elaborate why you want to keep this article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also Londers and Baboshed exhibit remarkably similar editing tendencies. They both have few edits to a handful of religion/psychology-type articles, they both stopped editing early March of this year only to activate briefly within the span of 4 hours to vote in this AFD. I know we have to AGF, but there is also WP:QUACK. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had noticed the similarities in style myself. Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal essay and original research, without any mainstream academic sources that demonstrate a connection between 'unbelief' and the content in the article. First Light (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I should prefer the initial definition of 217.202 but the article is however good and unbelief is an important concept both philosophically and religiously. Frankly, I don't understand certain will to delete cultural article which make wikipedia better and more complete. --3manol (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd here, another editor with the same writing style who has returned simply to vote in this AFD. Same handful of edits in similar areas. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two above, Londers and Baboshed, have been ~~confirmed~~ investigated as socks of the article's creator: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iserden. 3manol looks to be part of the same flock. Barrrower also has been ~~confirmed~~ checkusered. "Possible" but non confirmed, though all are from the same city and the first four have been blocked. 4-5 Keeps all from one user.... First Light (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopaedic original research. Would need a complete rewrite with reliable sources to remain viable. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.