Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular Progressivism

:{{la|Secular Progressivism}} ([{{fullurl:Secular Progressivism|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular Progressivism}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unclear if this neologism is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. A simple redirect to Culture Warrior would probably be ok. Soman (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete: I was half way through writing a PROD rationale on this article when the AfD appeared! First up, it is an unreferenced neologism. O'Reilly is notable but the terms he makes up probably are not. If they gain wider, mainstream, currency (outside of his fanbase) then that makes them notable. No evidence is provided that this is the case here. It seems unlikely that a meaningless neologism who's (unreferenced) definition seems to boil down to "whatever annoys O'Reilly" is really of any use to anybody but O'Reilly himself and maybe his fanbase. Exactly how conservative Islamic groups can be considered "secular" or "progressive" is entirely beyond me. No evidence is supplied that O'Reilly really does include them in his definition. Secondly. the article is written in a horrendous POV style and would require a complete rewrite if it were to be kept. The author uses "far-left" as a meaningless term of abuse which he incorrectly applies to mainstream US newspapers. He has also vandalised the article on the Nazi Party trying to repaint them as a "far-left" group. The most charitable interpretation is that he doesn't know what the far-left really is. Less charitable interpretations would be that the author is only here for propagandist purposes or that this is a ill-conceived parody possibly even intended to make O'Reilly look stupid. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per DanielRigal. Sharveet (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - not because it is unnotable but in its current shape the article is not getting the job done. Creator's motives should not play a factor here as much as his behaviour on Nazi Party was annoying. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - OR. Shot info (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I noticed this article when I checked the contributions of User:Nickidewbear, to see what else he was doing. Well, at least this explains where he got his views from, that he added to the article: Nazi Party. Probably the material shouldn't be deleted but moved to Culture Warrior, but then, on the other hand, it is certainly not written from a neutral point-of-view and doesn't use any secondary sources, so I have to say: delete.
• Strong Delete - I killed off the wp:BLP violations that I could see, but it still looks like an attack article.sinneed (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe redirect to an O'Reilly article. Croctotheface (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - It's bad enough that the article is simply a neologism (unreferenced and with no claim of notability), but it's quickly turning into a mere list of things the author doesn't like. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If my critics watched The O'Reilly Factor and the Fox News Channel as well as read Culture Warrior, they would understand that, among other things, Bill O'Reilly did refer to Soros, Lewis, and others as secular progressive, far left, etc. I also have a suspicion that some of my critics are themselves far left and secular progressive.

Nickidewbear (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

:It also could be possible that you are confirming everything that other editors above (aka your "my critics") have just stated? Shot info (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2009 (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.