Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamentalist atheist


 * 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 of the debate was Redirect to Strong atheism. There seems to be some usage of this term, but mainly in humourous web pages. Any further attempts to recreate the previous content, however, should be reverted immediately. --Deathphoenix 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete, upon further discussion. --Deathphoenix 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist atheist
I would say this is a neologism. It gets 354 unique Google hits although a significant proportion of those argue that it is a contradiction in terms. The page as it stands reads as a POV criticism of Atheism and I suspect it would always do so. I nearly speedied this under CSD A6 but given that it makes a serious case thought it should be brought here. David | Talk 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. David | Talk 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as reposted content. -- keep sleep ing   quit your job!   slack off!  19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Per deletion policy it may be better to let this one run rather than repeatedly speedying it. David | Talk 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Atheism in itself is effectively Fascism. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreekWarrior (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Also, Atheists tend to have their own POV slant on every article on Wiki, its time someone gave the fuckers like Carlin a taste of their own medicine, if they want to generalize, then they will get it right back at them tenfold. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreekWarrior (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Delete. Especially after researching the article's creator (User:GreekWarrior) edit history and other comments here, I suspect this article is complete bollocks. Peyna 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wouldn't say it's a neologism or complete bollocks; anti-atheists (such as our unsigned friend above) use it to describe particularly strident pro-atheist activists.  While the phrase itself is semi-notable, in the respect that people actually use it, the behavior it describes is not.  Powers 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete - but don't just keep either. This phrase is in use, and disparagingly describes certain forms of Strong atheism. Whether it is an accurate description is of course POV, but we should record the use, not the accuracy. I'd suggest either a merge to Fundamentalism (and let the fact that the term has been used of atheists be noted), or a simple redirect to Strong atheism. --Doc ask?  20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is fundamentally POV, which violates WP:NPOV. Ascribing hatred as a characteristic of a version of Atheism demonstrates more about the article's creator than about the nominative subject of said article.  If Atheism derrives from an emotional reaction of a theistic stance then this should be demonstrated with the appropriate references and citations.  As it happens, Atheism arises from reasoning about both physical and metaphysical concepts, both of which are amply demonstrated in Richard Dawkins' work, contrary to the POV expressed by the article's creator.   (aeropagitica)   21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And your user-page, full of the huffing and puffing and delusions of grandeur one would expect from an Atheist (assumed to be more creative - for example), is a typical example of the Atheistic arrogance from which you suffer, it's ok for you to generalize, but God forbid when a Christian does it, or any Theist for that matter. Atheism must be defeated head on, I would be glad to meet you in battle and slay you myself, you are nothing but filth to me, believe me, you are like dirt to me, you must be wiped out with aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.83.215 (talk • contribs)
 * LOL &mdash; simpatico hi 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and above James084 22:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article can be reformed somewhat, and it touches upon an important subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.83.215 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete There are already edits in this or that article that talk about strong or "dogmatic" atheism. Ruby 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete actual usage doesn't exist except to disparage the term. It seems to me that the most fundamental view of athiesm would lead to agnostisicm, and not in the direction this POV article suggests. --James S. 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be called "Atheist Fundamentalism" if it were to survive. Although that construction doesn't get much more hits. Also the topic is dealt with at Antitheism.--T. Anthony 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV dicdef -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Calwatch 04:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in light of trolling and threats by author. Gazpacho 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fundamentalism or Strong atheism per Doc. &mdash; simpatico hi 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef, irreconcilably POV, and WP:BALLS. Stifle 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the origninal nominator and many subsequent posts. Article is POV. Ginnna
 * Redirect to Strong atheism-- don't merge. Ashibaka tock 03:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete per nom --rogerd 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to an existing article such as Strong atheism or Antitheism iff a scholarly reference can be found that defines the term. Otherwise, delete. --JWSchmidt 22:10, 28 January 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.