Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist-terrorism


 * 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 early per WP:SNOW Adam Cuerden talk 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheist-terrorism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page seems like it was created to make a pro-religion or anti-atheism point, in violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong delete: Ugh. Entirely original research with no reliable sources. It also reads with a strong pro-religion and anti-atheism ideal, violating WP:NPOV (per above). Send this one off to Christpedia (Conserpedia?) or whatever it is named.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as well, per above. Extremely NPOV, not to mention violating WP:OR --Miskwito 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Mamalujo 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This non-!vote is from the creator of the article. JuJube 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clean up and name the sources to overcome the OR concerns. At least, cite some news sources since some names mentioned often appear in the news. If this doesn't work out, then by all means delete. --- Tito Pao 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research; the article defines a term and synthesizes facts without attribution to reliable sources. Google returns only 164 hits for "Atheist-terrorism", nearly all of them self-published (e.g., blogs and forum posts). --Muchness 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as probable orginal research. If it is not original research, it most certainly fails the policy on attribution. Kyra~(talk) 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chock full of OR, factually inaccurate (invokes Hitler as an example of an "atheist" for one), all inherently POV with no possibility of recovery. Krimpet 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * strong delete unsubstantiated original research/essay. /Blaxthos 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep but needs POV removed total rewrite While the article is strongly POV in its current form and needs a lot of work, it is a valid topic given Richard Dawkin's assertion that (to paraphrase) religion is responsible for most atrocities. There is a book review of the "The Dawkins Delusion" in the New Scientist from last week that could be cited and possibly the Dawkins Delusion itself contains references that are relevent (I don't know - I've not read it). I agree that several of the sections of this piece need wholesale removal -- like Hitler, Purportedly Religious Terrorism etc. Plus, the article name should be changed for sure. Perhaps a "List of atrocities carried out by Atheist Regimes" or "Atrocities by Supposedly Atheist Regimes" might be better? Coricus 06:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and start again with a "Atrocities by Supposedly Atheist Regimes" article. Coricus 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and radically clean up per Coricus 99of9 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Delete I'm convinced that the content doesn't even match the name. 99of9 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Utter nonsense, lists political/terrorist parties as "terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Atheist goals or teachings." Practically unsourced (both sources are somewhat offtopic), extreme POV. DLX 08:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If someone wants to create a referenced article on Marxist terrorism (with non-marginal sources that refer to it as such), let them do so. Gazpacho 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - In accordance with DLXs reasoning. The mere title of the article is POV. The various organizations themselves already have articles outlining their agendas this kind of grouping and labeling is not encyclopedic. Of course the same could possibly be said about the "muslim terrorism" article. - Arch NME 10:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon taking another look at both articles there is a differnce which is that cited third party sources refer to it as "Islamist terrorism". Still POV but at least it's a record of someone elses, not an in house originally researched one. - Arch NME 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete POV forking/attack page --Haemo 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the author of the article, I'd like to make a couple points. If you note the article on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, it points out that communist terrorist organizations are second only to Islamic groups.  Communist (Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc.) groups are by definition and self description philosophically atheist.  This compilation is not my idea, nor is the concept of atheist terrorist groups novel.  It is not original research.  It should also be noted that there are articles on Christian Terrorism (despite the fact that there is not a single Christian group on the list) and on Religious Terrorism (despite the fact that no religious group other than Islamic is represented on the list.  Based on the State Department list there's more reason for this article than Narco, Christian, Agro or Eco terrorism articles. The objections above to POV are equally applicable to the other terrorism articles.  And, as no doubt most of you know, POV according to Deletion policy is not a strong basis for deletion.  The article can be edited and rewritten to deal with that.  As to the title itself being POV, it is not so any more than the other terrorism articles are.  The other articles on classifications of terror groups include their philosophical world view as their motivation.  It is no more POV to have an article on atheistic terror groups than it is on Islamic or Eco terrorists.  As to sources, they can be provided.  There are existing articles, most of them well cited, on each of the groups listed.  Finally, I don't think it's the best solution (because the category would be less inclusive leaving out any philosophically atheist groups which are not communist) but the article could be renamed "communist terrorism". Mamalujo 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Atheism is not a main philosophical basis for any of these groups. Therefore, labeling them "Atheist-terrorism" is both wrong and misleading. If you want, indeed, start an article about communist terrorism, but this time please find acceptable sources. DLX 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree. Historical materialism (or philosphical materialism - Marx's term) is a keystone of communist doctrine.  It rules out any rules out the existence of any supernatural entity.  Every communist government has been officially and stridently atheist.  It is an essential part of their goals and identity. Mamalujo 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources calling all these groups athiest terrorists and that is what is important here. I took a look at that christian terrorism article as well and frankly that needs to go for some of the same reasons this one does. Let some one else make that call though as it might be looked on badly if you did, see WP:POINT. One bad article does not justify another. - Arch NME 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research; WP:POINT Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete, calling ETA atheists, where there are sources that some people went to mass before detonating a bomb or to an ETA-sympathetic priest to confess their killings is more than slightly out of line... if the rest is as accurate there may only be one place to put this is the trash can. And by the way ... equating Marxism-Leninism with atheism can only be done by someone who does know nothing about it. Alf Photoman  15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most ridiculus article ever sighted that doesn't have anyhthing with atheism to do. Renaming the article to something else doesn't seem to make any good use either as nothing is related to anything. Article is majorly WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V hence beyond repair. Lord Metroid 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everything above. I seem to remember a similar article coming through AfD recently ... anyone remember what that was or the result?  -- Pastordavid 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The title would seem to be deliberately misleading & biased. If it can be turned into a decent article about communist terrorism, that would be great.  If this is done, it should be moved to Communist terrorism but the resultant redirect should be deleted. The focus of the article is communist terrorist groups so why label them as "atheist"?  If you're talking about communists, be bold enough to say so.  How is the all-communists-are-atheists argument irrelavant (whether it be true or not)?  What if they are?  So, be up front about it and move it to Communist terrorism ...  if and only if it can be repaired.  However, I doubt that it can be.  As noted above, there's nothing relating these groups together besides the fact that they happen to share similar political ideas also the article seems to contain original research and bias and seems to lack sources. Jimp 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete oh so many reasons - but it's basically an attack page on communism that riddled with OR, factual inaccuracy, no citations relevent to the topic, et al. WilyD 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: More like an attack on atheism. Did you note his background?George Leung 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Clear example of a POV essay with a deliberately misleading title. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete 8thstar 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename or Regroup. As an Inclusionist I cannot use delete. However, I noticed that most of them are nothing more than existing terrorism classification (such as communist), and thus this article is nothing more than a violation of WP:NPOV, and perhaps WP:NOT. George Leung 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: If no one object, I will go WP:BOLD, and rename it to communist terrorism, which does exist. George Leung 08:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT2: DELETE. I am no inclusionist anymore! George Leung 08:15, 8 March 2007 (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.