Deletion of Agnostic atheism

Comment: Deleting this article would certainly set a dangerous precedent for the continuity of philosophical articles since all philosophy is original "research". Using the criterion at , we could legitimately strip most religious articles since much of the information in those articles originate from disreputable sources, such as The Holy Bible which has been translated innumerable times by only God knows how many people. Should we limit such religious articles to only discussions occurring in academic journals? I've seen some really crazy flame wars in academic journals. They're not exactly the pinnacles of authority. The compilers of the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' operate a sensible criterion for deciding whether a new word shall be canonised by inclusion. The aspirant word must be commonly used without needing to be defined and without its coinage being attributed whenever it is used. &mdash; Richard Dawkins in the foreword to ''The Meme Machine'' written by Susan Blackmore. I'm not an expert on determining the spread of a word; however, I think this is certainly something worth looking into. The article religiopoiesis continues to exist despite having a measly 10 results in AltaVista whereas the article agnostic atheism is under fire with 1,800 results. Boolean searches were conducted to strip results that mentioned "Wikipedia". You cannot find some terms and subjects through any search engine or in any dictionary. Knowledge of these subjects and words would necessitate access to private libraries or subscriptions to extremely expensive academic journals. Esoteric subjects are inherently noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion. The appearance of a deficiency of information about a subject should prompt further inquiry about the subject instead of blunt opposition to the subject's inclusion. Encarta apparently has a http://encarta.msn.com/Agnosticism.html premium article that mentions "agnostic atheism". The content is http://autocww.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/PhilosophyAndPhilosophers/Theism.html here and was reportedly contributed by Dr. Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)