Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist left
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. El_C 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Atheist left
No sources, non-notable term, seems to be original research. Mdwh 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep 2,390,000 google hits can't be wrong. It's even on a CNN page. ~ Feureau 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unless sources are cited. Looks like a non-notable subject to me. --Terence Ong (C | R) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete POV term of abuse whose meaning is obvious and about which there is nothing to say beyond the obvious. Also 780 Google hits, not 2 million as claimed above. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Few Google hits beyond the article itself, most of them clearly POV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of every derogative right-wing term. MartinDK 06:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. There are indeed only 780 Google hits. [1] And most of them do not use the word "left" to mean "left-wing" (e.g. there is a page talking about the "atheist left behind"). -- Nikodemos 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Even though I can be described as an "athiest leftist" myself, I can't find the afore-mentioned CNN page, and it seems like an OR attempt to counter Religious right, which is an actual valid term. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- weak delete No strong opinion on the matter but think it might be a neologism and/or WP:OR for now. For the record, relevant pages from google are: the cnn quote which merely a single unidentified female using the term (and through a translator no less so no indication from that source that its even a term that really exists). Here is a use by massnews.com the right-wing massachusets news service/propaganda outlet- [2] - they use it in direct contrast to the "religious right." This page indicates that Ann Coulter uses the term in one of her books and gives a page number. If someone has time and access they may want to check that out. Joe Sabia (an undergraduate columnist for the Cornell daily newspaper(and no Sabia, in event that you google yourself regularly, I'm not comparing you Ann Coulter)) apparently had an article where he used the term extensively - [3] and some bloggers responded to it (for example [4]). A mention is also from another right wing magazine [5] and a few from miscelaneous bloggers. Overall it seems to be a term in use but without sources that are talking about the term and not just using the term we can't write an article that meets WP:V and WP:NOR. If Coulter's piece actually tries to define the term then we might be in a position to consider writing an article. JoshuaZ 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The question is if there is such a thing as a distinctive "atheist left" movement, as opposed to a collection of people who happen to be atheistic and hold left-wing political views. If the only thing that can be said about the "atheist left" is that it is a term used to describe left-wing atheists, then we can never write an encyclopedic article on the subject. We cannot and should not have an article on every random combination of two adjectives (e.g. homosexual right, Scientologist left, atheist centrists, Muslim pro-choice, etc) -- Nikodemos 06:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the sources above make it clear that at minimum there are conservative sources such as Sabia who are using it to mean a specific group and not just the intersection of atheists and leftists but even that is WP:OR. JoshuaZ 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Are you sure they use it to mean a specific group? It seems more like they use it to imply that all leftists are atheists (or vice versa). -- Nikodemos 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not completely sure but I think so. Note in particular the way it is used in parallel to "religious right." However, since none of them define the term its hard to tell. Certainly from the brief Coulter excerpt she seems to think that its an actual group since she complains that the NYT doesn't use it. JoshuaZ 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Are you sure they use it to mean a specific group? It seems more like they use it to imply that all leftists are atheists (or vice versa). -- Nikodemos 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the sources above make it clear that at minimum there are conservative sources such as Sabia who are using it to mean a specific group and not just the intersection of atheists and leftists but even that is WP:OR. JoshuaZ 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The question is if there is such a thing as a distinctive "atheist left" movement, as opposed to a collection of people who happen to be atheistic and hold left-wing political views. If the only thing that can be said about the "atheist left" is that it is a term used to describe left-wing atheists, then we can never write an encyclopedic article on the subject. We cannot and should not have an article on every random combination of two adjectives (e.g. homosexual right, Scientologist left, atheist centrists, Muslim pro-choice, etc) -- Nikodemos 06:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quite apart from the issue of whether anyone has ever used the term "atheist left" before (an issue I believe to be of marginal importance), the article as written is pure, unsourced speculation and conjecture unworthy of wikipedia. There is simply nothing of value in it. Delete. Allon Fambrizzi 07:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- Delete - as the Athiest right page (below); both POV articles, non notable.SkierRMH 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Allon Fambrizzi, This article is unsourced speculation. --Amists 13:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced oversimplification. Black-Velvet 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Seems pointless.--Folantin 14:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced and serious POV concerns.-- danntm T C 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Secular left as this seems to simply be about the outright atheists in that political stream rather than a unique movement of its own.--T. Anthony 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Someone's unsourced, OR personal essay that attempts to create (or redefine) a neologism. There is really nothing worth merging, as the article consists of generalizations, many of which are dubious or just confused. JChap2007 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the article, but erase all material except the first two paragraphs. The material beyond that is original research. However, I do find sufficent evidence in Google that the term exists and is used. I also think that a decent, small article could be made on the subject, provided that it's sourced. Herostratus 14:42, 14 November 2006 (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.
