Talk:Secular-progressive

This article was proposed for deletion. Read all about it in the AfD.

Neutrality
I did my best to make this highly-charged article as neutral as possible: please support me in this goal. LAATi88 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Safemariner: I've removed the neutrality tags for now, as I fail to see where this article is un-neutral (or, for that matter, where it reads like a sermon). If you'd like to return to this page and share your concerns, I'll consider agreeing with you. LAATi88 05:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put the tags because the article is expounding one point of view: Mr. O'Reilly's. It is masquerading as a discussion about a topic but it is just a POV of a person.  The article reads like a sermon against godless organizations and that is why I put a sermon tag.  A large number of people have criticized this topic.  Do a simple Google search on the topic.  Also links to secularism and progressivism might be useful. --- Safemariner 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability
The notability tag only points out that editors are concerned that either there is no reference providing notability or that the references do not meet the criteria. Please review the guideline, especially this point, which means that O'Reilly's book is itself not adequate:


 * The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.

If you keep on removing the tag then someone is likely to simply put the entry up for deletion citing notability, which can and does happen quite frequently. This is an opportunity to provide references. I'm restoring the tag.PelleSmith 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your commitment to keeping Wikipedia notable. However, I do believe that this term fully fulfills the notability criterion; I'm adding a CBS article in which the term "SP" itself is discussed. I will find more information supporting this article if you think it necessary (and I will leave the notability tag in place [for now]).

I'm not sure I understand one particular point: how is it that articles such as "Newspeak" come to satisfy notability? Did not this term devolve from a single author? LAATi88 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, if you can find it referenced places then adding those references will keep the entry from being put up for deletion by someone in the future. If you think it is notable and think it should stay on Wikipedia then it is simply in your best interest.  Also, these kinds of tags are good because others notice them and work to improve the entry.  I'm always amazed when editors remove the tags because they think the tags are stating that the article isn't any good.  In its current state it is completely self-referential, that's the problem.  I have no idea, by the way, about Orwell's newspeak. I mean i've heard it ever since high school to some extent or another, but I don't know how notable it is.PelleSmith 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge location
I thought the result of the AfD was delete, or I would have suggested there that the merge/redirect target be Culture Warrior instead of Bill O'Reilly (commentator). What does everyone else think? -- Cat Whisperer 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Culture WarPelleSmith 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As the closer of the AfD, I came close to deleting it, but figured there was sufficient contrary opinions that a redirect wouldn't hurt. If anybody thinks Culture Warrior is a better target for the redirect, I have no objections if you go ahead and change it.  My only request would be that if you do that, you track down all the spelling variations and change them all; I found Secular progressives, Secular-progressives, and Secular-progressive.  There may be others that I didn't find :-)  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Culture Warrior article discusses secular-progressives early on, in the second paragraph, while the Bill O'Reilly article doesn't discuss them until very late in the article, making the redirect hard to understand at first. I will change the redirects if there is no strong objection. -- Cat Whisperer 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a one paragraph article at Secular Progressive Movement. Should that be changed to a redirect as well? -- Cat Whisperer 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Beats me. Certainly out of scope of the original AfD, but be WP:BOLD -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I will copy the material from both articles into Culture Warrior, and then try to do some copy-editing, although that is not my strong suit.  Thanks for the advice! -- Cat Whisperer 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with all the redirects, and am starting in on the copy-editing. Here is a link to the current state of the redirects:. -- Cat Whisperer 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the final result of this AfD debate. I appreciate that this significant phrase has not been removed completely from Wikipedia, but also appreciate the desire of my fellow Wikipedians to keep the encyclopedia notable. Thank you, and I'll look forward to expanding the Culture Warrior article with your assistance. LAATi88 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)