This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
There is no reason why these need to be separated out. CPAC is multi year but it never does this. We would need an admin to do a quick splice (not necessarily a good one) to preserve editing history. Zero Serenity(talk - contributions) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
No objection to merging the articles, if that is the consensus. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any objections in either of the talk pages... The 2016 article brings nothing new to merit its own article. (comment in merge section for both talk pages)--Fjmustak (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This isnt really the type of page that is meant for the cat.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I disagree, as the content of the lead provides ample justification for the cats. But I am willing to listen to your explanation as to why you think that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
