Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antagonistic 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:56Z

Antagonistic atheism

Blatant attempt to promote a new neoligism to advertise a book. Only 350 google hits most of which refer to the book [1] Sophia 08:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On morning GMT 20th Feb I moved the page back as it got moved by Alicewr to Militant atheism (which is now a redirect to Antagonistic atheism. On with the voting. Ttiotsw 08:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, 114 unique hits. Any salvagable information can be moved to a page on militant atheism, a well-established term. -Silence 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because Wikipedia is not a place for every sound bite of rhetorical propaganda that someone made up one day to get an advantage in a current controversy. Metamagician3000 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snalwibma 10:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologistic dicdef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. At best merge with "Jeff Nall" whenever he becomes notable enough for entry. The guy has a good point to try and get more money though but we need more notable people to cite him on this. Ttiotsw 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next - larconic atheism? --Michael Johnson 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:N completely, as the only citation is to an unreliable source of the author's own work. While this may prove that the term has in fact been used by the author, that's not enough to demonstrate any objective acceptance of this term beyond the author. -Markeer 13:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One person's tendentious crusade. Laurence Boyce 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I would have supported redirecting to Jeff Nall if he actually had an article. -- Black Falcon 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Madhava 1947 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2007 (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.