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. The article does have sources, though, as people have pointed out, these centre on the view of one person. The article is about a term, and the term was first used in 2009, and despite searches, is clear that it is hardly used as yet. WP:NOTNEO does not completely forbid articles on neologisms - however, they would need to be more widely used by more sources than this one. It is possible there may be an article on this term in a year or two, and I'm willing to userfy on request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

not notable -Abhishikt 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh.. I found out later that this is first nomination of this article -Abhishikt 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Moved article from WP:Articles for deletion/2nd to WP:Articles for deletion/Atheism 3.0 per convention.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Refs are primarily from one author, who seems to have invented the neologism. The only other source we have is from the supposed leader of the movement rejecting the term. We've also already had some support for this on the talk page, per these concerns. Simply doesn't meet WP:N.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article subject is notable. Furthermore, the statements in the article are verifiable as they are supported by reliable sources. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The term is single sourced. WP:NOTDICT - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the term is NOT notable enough to deserve its own article. -Abhishikt 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to New Atheism per WP:NEOLOGISM. Not notable enough on its own; just one proponent. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'Merge' will be giving WP:UNDUE weight to this term. -Abhishikt 02:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: has in depth coverage in multiple sources--passes WP:N – Lionel ^(talk) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There simply isn't enough coverage of the topic in true secondary sources (as distinguished from mirror sources). The subject may perhaps achieve notability in the future, but for now it comes across as pushing a neologism. About the merge idea, New Atheism would really be the wrong target, because New Atheism is about a non-conciliatory form of atheism, very much unrelated to what 3.0 is about. However, it might be reasonable to have a one-sentence mention of 3.0 in Atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there's enough discussion in reliable sources to merit a stub, at least: [1][2] Qrsdogg (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a blog; I'm not sure the "guest voices" section of a blog, "On Faith", qualifies as a reliable source. As well, your second link is referenced again to Burke, the only person who seems to ever talk about it. I'm not convinced this establishes notability.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A scholarly reference titled Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism, published by Indiana University Press, which discussed Atheism 3.0 in depth, was deleted by User:Mann jess. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted, reverted after you added it. As I specified, this reference only quotes our other, existing ref, word for word. It adds absolutely nothing novel to the article; We already know what Burke said about his neologism, this doesn't provide anything new. Adding multiple refs that quote the same one paragraph without commentary isn't helpful. Also, please don't go around putting your comments in "big" tags. That isn't helpful either, and only serves to emphasize your posts over everyone else's for no other reason than your knowledge of html tags.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jess's justification for the reversion was as follows:

Please don't start edit warring here too. This reference only quotes our other ref. Feel free to take it to the talk page.

You did not bring it to the article's talk page as requested, instead choosing to bring it directly here and accuse Jess without even mentioning his justification. Also, big fonts are not appropriate on AfD as they give undue weight, so please don't use them. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I posted the comment here is to allow users here to see the source plainly since many individuals would not bother to check the talk page. Removing a scholarly source relevant to the article was incorrect because it undermines the verifiabilty of the article, especially when the template on the article suggested the addition of more reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:44, 22 July 2011 (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.