Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith-based


 * 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. Consensus found to delete, no predjudice to future discussions of disambiguation pages. j⚛e deckertalk 15:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Faith-based
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic is a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NAD). Earlier versions included discussion of faith-based organizations, which would be appropriate for an article called Faith-based organizations, similar to Faith-based foreign aid or Faith-based schools. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage from reliable sources about the term as a word; e.g., on its origin(s), spread and rise in popularity, usage different parts of the world, its definition or discussion in legislation or legal cases, etc. Agyle (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I  Notify Online 05:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - my only concern is that with this edit you removed more than 1/2 of the content. I'm not saying that was a bad editing decision or that it didn't need to happen but it means contributors to this discussion are making a decision about an article that isn't really what you're suggesting any more. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, sure, but the title would almost make for a legitimate disambiguation page for the two articles you listed and the third which should probably be created. The Bush administration created an "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI)". That and issues relating to the definition of "faith-based" are well-summarised in the essay Categories of Faith-Based Organizations: History and Policy Context published by the Berkley Center. The Center for Faith and Service of the National Crime Prevention Council provides further definitions (of "faith-based organization" in particular) in their FACES Toolkit and other documents. A number of other sources provide comprehensive background for the differentiation between "faith-based" and "faith-related" (the latter being a term coined by Steven Rathgeb Smith and Michael R. Sosin in 2001). It's very definition is the subject of several books specifically about faith-based initiatives and the legislative and legal framework that exists to support them despite "separation of Church and State". My point is that there is plenty of material out there and the use of poor sources and bad writing isn't a good reason to delete an article. Much of this strikes me as a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM kind of problem. Stalwart 111  06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the term needs a disambiguation page; your three suggested inclusions have the term "faith-based" in them, but are distinct concepts or organizations. But either way, I think turning a 9-year-old article into a disambiguation page is "deleting" it in a sense, and so should still go through AfD. There is already an article on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I agree there are many faith-based things in the world (principles, laws, policies, retreats, magazines, companies, groups, etc.), and sources about them dating back millenia, but this article since its inception has been about the term faith-based, not about things that are faith-based. I removed a lot of unsourced content because it was comprised of unnecessary examples of things that are faith-based. (Here is the version immediately prior to my edit; here is the version by the original author in 2005.) The tiny amount that was relevant to the article seemed dubious, and the reliable sources I did find either contradicted or failed to verify the claims; there was no material I considered factual and pertinent to save per FIXTHEPROBLEM, except for part of the first sentence. The decision on deletion should not be based of the article's existing state, which can be improved, but on whether the subject of the article is suitable for a Wikipedia article. Agyle (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't strongly disagree with any of that and I should have been clear - I don't disagree with you bringing it here either. I didn't opine in favour of keeping it for exactly that reason. If it is kept, you seem to be suggesting that we blow it up and start again (correct me if I'm wrong). Couldn't agree more, but that requires as assessment of the current sub-par content, thus my commentary about that edit. I also think there's a place for Faith-based initiative and a few other things that have "faith-based" in their title. In that sense, we'd be talking less about a disambiguation page and more about a brief overview with appropriate content-splits. In some ways, we'd be better off deleting this (on the basis you have outlined) and then going to WP:DRV later on for permission to create a new article with a different focus (the subject, broadly, rather than the term). Stalwart 111  22:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I think the difficulty would remain, no matter what, that the subject is an adjective, and it's difficult to treat it as anything other than a discussion of the term itself. Offhand I can't think of any Wikipedia articles with a subject that's strictly an adjective. It would be like having a separate article on Religious (which redirects to Religion, a noun), with an overview of Religious education, Religious laws, Religious organizations, Religious texts, Religious music, etc. It's complicated by “faith-based” being largely a synonym/euphemism for “religious”; distinctions between “religious education” and “faith-based education” would be splitting hairs. Another difficulty is that synonyms vary regionally; Religious school and Faith-based school both redirect to Faith school, a recently-created term in England. “Faith-based initiative” became popular in the US for religious organizations' programs after the federal “Faith-Based Initiative” was launched in 2001 to fund the programs. Agyle (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, though a number of those sources specifically deal with the question of religious/faith-based. But I digress - that's the whole purpose of creating a draft and seeking approval - it would only make it back to mainspace if others agree those issues have been addressed. Stalwart 111  08:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - contrary to WP:NAD, and don't see how it could be turned into an encyclopedia article. I also disagree with making it into a disambiguation page, don't think it's appropriate or necessary here. mikeman67 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - per discussion above. I think this has potential as a completely re-written article about (in many ways) a different subject. But the nomination here is sound and the sources provided really can't be used to verify the claims being made. As it stands this is synthesis and should be deleted. Stalwart 111  08:04, 4 March 2014 (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.