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 redirect to League of Militant Atheists. A few editors also favor adding hatnote there, but not enough discussion here for there to be a consensus either way on that issue in the course of this AfD. But that can be discussed further on the relevant talk page.Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:DAB. The only entry that should possibly exist is the League of Militant Atheists. The other two are improper per MOS:DABENTRY. You can't have a disambig page for one entry. This page is unnecessary and inherently problematic. See current dispute. Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and resolve the issues If there is only one entry "that should possibly exist", then this should be a redirect (but frankly I'm not sure that is the case). Deletion is not a substitute for resolving the issues that surround this article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please see the proposal (and my bold move) on the talk page. I believe this may solve some of the issues we've been having without the neutrality concerns. If the proposal sticks (I don't forsee any reason it wouldn't), then this AfD won't be useful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this in place for a day or two, depending on activity on the article. If your change "sticks", I'll withdraw it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments below, I've reconsidered. I agree with the redirect to League of Militant Atheists. To have a redirect to Atheism makes little sense, putting aside whether a disambig page for atheism is needed at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see no reason to have a disambiguation page on atheism at all, as this runs afoul of WP:DABCONCEPT (all the topics on the page being types of atheism, and not entirely distinct concepts). If Militant atheism is to redirect anywhere, it should probably just redirect to Atheism, with some comment in that article about perceptions of militancy/aggressiveness, or possibly about epithets used against atheism and atheists. bd2412 T 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The other alternative would be a redirect to League of militant atheists, since we appear to have a number of sources using the term around that area and period, but fairly sparsely outside. I don't know if directing Militant Atheism to Atheism would be most appropriate. This comment shouldn't be construed as support for (or opposition to) deleting the disambig. Either way, AfD probably isn't the best solution.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not be opposed to the proposed redirect to League of Militant Atheists either. However, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that at least some people will come to Wikipedia to look up "militant atheism" and will expect to find an article on something other than the obscure organization to which we now propose to redirect the term. bd2412 T 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true. I think a reasonable solution could be a hatnote at the top of the League page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Robofish has proposed a hatnote pointing to Antireligion, which I think is sensible. bd2412 T 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the policies regarding the inclusion of derogatory terms as redirects? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would say the key policies would be WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. Many of these terms are not redirects because Wikipedia has articles on the terms themselves. bd2412 T 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Over one hundred sources discussed state atheism as a form of militant atheism (please see the former article). The RfC held this past fall (which I opposed) determined that militant atheism would serve as a disambiguation page for state atheism and New atheism with the said reason being "in order to avoid conflating the forms of militant atheism (since the term militant atheism may refer to either of these terms)." Militant atheism has been well defined by several philosophers, as demonstrated in the former article's "Concepts" section. The academic term militant atheism is notable and several scholarly sources substantiate this fact (see the "References" section). As such, the disambiguation page should be reinstated, or the former "Concepts" section should take its place at militant atheism. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested to League of militant atheists - Youreallycan 23:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists.--В и к и T 23:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. Originally, the page was a POV fork, and it was changed to a DAB to try to avoid the issues that the full article created. But it clearly has become a magnet for edit warring over a term that is used by critics of New Atheism as a way to bash it. Let's kill this POV-motivated edit warring and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. This looks logical. Abhishikt (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists per Tryptofish's rationale; I'm persuaded that would best resolve the POV-motivated editing problems that erupted here. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists - yes, that's an excellent solution. That really is the only place where the term "militant atheism/t" has any attested validity. All the rest – whether it's state atheism, new atheism or Richard Dawkins – amounts to little more than the use of the term as a slur. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists per all the arguments above. This will help clear up the hierarchy in various articles related to the main article on Atheism/Atheist. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. Good solution to an article that for years has only been a coatrack of various more or less unrelated misunderstandings and misinterpretations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists seems to be the solution here. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I agree that League of Militant Atheists is the most logical target, I would suggest adding a hatnote to that article linking to Antireligion, which is often loosely referred to as 'militant atheism'. Yes, it's a pejorative use, but if we keep this search term at all we ought to recognise that some people use it pejoratively. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. I would support adding a hatnote to Antireligion or New Atheism in the article, but that's an independent editorial decision. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. The derogatory version of the term militant atheist is just as worthy of a redirect as fine dining is. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. Militant atheism as it currently exists is not a valid article. It serves as a device to allow anti-atheist activists to advance a particular agenda. --Lustywench (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. I agree with Lustywench's comment and note that Anupam moved the earlier content of the page to Conservapedia where (and I quote from ANI) "anti-atheist Conservapedia administrator made it article of the month for December". Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The strong consensus appears to be for a redirect. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's ambiguous where the redirect should go, as I doubt most people are looking for League of Militant Atheists. The more "likely" targets also happen to be very POV. 169.231.52.243 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. As with 169 I admit I'm not sure whether people searching for the term are searching for the redirect target. But I'm reluctant to support a disambig page linking to articles where the term is not discussed. (And I think having absolutely no redirect isn't ideal when there is one possible meaning for the term as established in our articles.) While it's not always strictly required a term be discussed in the disambig target it generally should be obvious why there is a link to the corresponding article in the corresponding article which I'm not convinced there is in this case. Of course if discussion or mention of the term can be justified in the other targets then I'm fine with a disambig, but that should be discussed in the other article talk page/s. As for comments about the previous recent RFC, if people have concerns participants aren't aware of this new discussion, it would IMO be acceptable to notify all participants (except those who have already commented or who are banned) provided it's done in a neutral way. However if anyone desires to do this, I suggest they discuss it in the talk page first to ensure their notification is neutrally worded etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I thought the version of [1] was NPOV but it may fall afoul of the above mentioned disambiguation rules. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Fine dining argument it seems unsuitable to base a disambig solely on the intended meaning and the perjorative use of the word. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists, or delete. I'm tired of pov-forks and synthesis and coatracking and edit-warring. Let's get rid of it - and free up some resources to fix other articles. bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.