Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atheist Agenda


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Atheist Agenda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Student organization that seems to have made headlines for a week in 2005 and then disappeared. There are not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG TM 12:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I found a couple of other sources on this group, but nothing substantial enough to indicate long-lasting notability. GABgab 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep More than a week's coverage in reliable sources. The group has tried various approaches, such as sponsoring a debate and protesting a National Day of Prayer, but nothing generated headlines like their annual "Bibles for porn" exchange. To the 2005 NBC News and XBiz sources cited in the article, add:
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting a third time to allow for a review of sources presented later in the discussion. North America1000 09:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE. Multiple reliable sources confer notability when professional writers describe the subject in some detail. Diego (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Flash in the pan, but a notable flash in the pan per sources.  Possibly a rename to the main incident that made them a big deal per BIO1E and related guidelines.   Montanabw (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete by analogy with BIO1E. Most coverage cited is in the local press, so doubtless reliable sources but still doubtful notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Still not convinced of notability? Add five more reliable sources to the eight above:


 * 's argument is that the organization [only] made headlines for a week in 2005 and there are not enough reliable sources. There are headlines from 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, in at least a dozen different reliable sources.


 * wrote a couple of other sources, but nothing substantial enough to indicate long-lasting notability. Not counting the two La Prensa pieces, which don't focus primarily on The Athiest Agenda, the other eleven sources range from 127 to 924 words and total over 4,800 words. That is substantial in number and depth. Whether the notability is long-lasting is a fair question. Coverage is spread over six years between 2005 and 2013. That satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. At that point the group changed its name and tactics. It is probable that their less confrontational approach generates less coverage. I haven't looked for any under the new name, but notability is not temporary, so if the group has disappeared from the headlines for the last three years, it shouldn't matter.


 * wrote that most coverage cited is in the local press. Three of the dozen sources are local, although in this case local means the seventh largest city in the United States, with a population of nearly 1.5 million. Next come four notable national media outlets. The sex industry source is admittedly a niche publication. The religious news sources are not as mainstream as The New York Times, but it would be difficult to argue that the national Christian press has a limited audience in the United States. Next are three of the "Big Four" national TV news networks. One of their pieces originated with the Associated Press. The eleventh is a notable news company in the United Kingdom. Finally, there is the official Mexican news agency, whose story was printed in newspapers throughout Mexico and the United States. These plainly satisfy WP:AUD.


 * Andreas Philopater further suggests that something analagous to WP:BIO1E for people should apply to organizations. The "Smut for smut" campaign was annual, not a one-time affair. There were nine events (plus minor ones, such as sponsoring a debate and protesting a National Day of Prayer, although those were only covered by local press). WP:BLP2E applies. Even if it were one event and if the guideline applied to organizations, WP:BIO1E is about whether the focus of the article should be the event or the person. At most it would support moving the article to "Smut for Smut". It would not support deletion.


 * I invite, , and to examine the thirteen sources and consider withdrawing their recommendations to delete. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still only see two sources from 2008 in the article itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is true (the two are from 2005, but were added to the article in 2008), but is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions because it is easily surmountable and does not require deletion to fix. If it bothers you, you could copy the eleven sources above into the article. Articles for deletion is not about whether an article doesn't currently satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but about whether it could never be improved to do so. Deletion is not cleanup. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 26 January 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.