Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical atheism


 * 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 merge to New atheism. czar 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Evangelical atheism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This should be deleted because it's poorly sourced, not notable, outdated, and doesn't contribute anything not available in other articles. The originator,, is seemingly inactive and hasn't responded to a deletion proposal on their talk page.

Evangelism has two meanings. Primarily, it means preaching the Christian gospel to convert others into Christianity, as evidenced by the article evangelism. Atheism clearly is not this.

Less commonly, evangelism can mean "zealous in advocating something" which is how it is being used here. A more accurate title for this article would be "Zealous atheism".

One can be zealous and "outspoken" about advocating atheism, but one can be zealous and outspoken about advocating many things; evangelical atheism does not merit an article any more than evangelical capitalism or evangelical vegetarianism would.

The article is also poorly sourced. Only two sources actually discuss the term, and one of them does so dismissively. That leaves us with only a dead link to an obscure 23 year old article, where Dan Barker merely uses the word evangelism as a synonym for being a more impassioned advocate. There are no reliable and notable sources for this article because "evangelical atheism" as a specific term is not notable. Ofus (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * CommentThis is pretty much wrong. There are not "only 2 articles that discuss the phrase." Where the hell do you get that idea? The point of the metaphor is not that they are passionate (Nietzsche was a passionate atheist, but he was not an evangelical) but that they exhibit many of the same distasteful characteristics of evangelical Christians, and other evangelical religions, only in a mirrored form. The term has much wider currency than you appear to realize, and is quite analytically useful. Perhaps the article at present isn't good, but that is a reason to improve, not delete. Many sources could easily be found. Supervoter (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Possible neologism.   Dr Strauss   talk  09:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentEverything is a neologism at some time or another; but if you are implying the author of the article invented this phrase, you are assuredly wrong. As below, there is a very clear, useful, and distinctive meaning to this phrase: atheists who rabidly aim to convince the faith to abandon religion, with books like "God is not Good", "The God Delusion", "Breaking the Spell". Distinctively, such atheists often have an embarrassingly unsophisticated crass understanding of the role of religion in intellectual history; the term is thus generally used derisively by more serious, Nietzschean atheists such as John Gray. Here is a good article, explaining the evangelical atheists and their motives, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists
 * Keep I don't think the nominator knows what he's talking about. This is a very commonly used phrase in academic circles, and it has a very specific meaning: atheists who want to "convert" or convince others over to Atheism. Very specifically, it usually refers to the strident brand of atheism that doesn't actually engage in an intellectually serious way with religion generally, and with Christianity in particular. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and so on. There is no good reason not to have a page on this topic, which is notable and has received a great deal of coverage. Supervoter (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is The SUPERVOTER, his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions. Thanks for your understanding. Please see my userpage if you have questions.)
 * Comment User:Mpleahy is unlikely to respond. Based on his/her edit history, Mpleahy's last edit took place on 20 April, 2008. He/she is inactive for 9 years. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (with some reluctance) as a term that has gained considerable currency. Leaving aside self-published and crudely abusive references, we can find essays focussing on "evangelical atheists" in Huffington Post and The Guardian, a mention in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, and among many discussions in published books the term is used in chapter or section headings here and here. So there seems plenty of scope to add to the article and keep it tightly linked to published commentary about "evangelical atheism" Noyster  (talk),  19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)  Lady  of  Shalott  04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}


 * Merge to New atheism - the term is certainly in wide use, and it describes a notable pattern of behaviour. The sources listed by Noyster are I think decisive here: for instance, Louise Antony's 2007 book uses it as an index term and devotes 5 pages to the topic (and the date of the book shows the term is not a brief neologism: it is used in many more recent books also). There is thus substantial coverage, not just brief mentions. Also persuasive is the fact that the books are of very different types, from encyclopedic or scholarly to popular and even humorous, and address issues from theology to politics and education. That doesn't mean we need a whole new article, however; a merge to the article on New atheism would seem the right answer as it focuses on Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett's variety of atheism already, and covers all of the ground of this article and more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now aware of the New Atheism article I'll go with merge to this, recommending that the use of the term "evangelical atheism" should be added to it with refs as above Noyster (talk),  10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge to New atheism. Bearian (talk)
 * Merging to New Atheism seems like the best course, per above. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:19, 8 March 2017 (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.