Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious coercion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced. Not notable. A search for sources indicates the portmanteau is a simple contraction of words, and not a separate distinct concept. The general impression of the various sourced reviewed is that this coercion is one of the many tactics used in religious persecution. Coverage of the topic is a better fit for the particular events where it occurs, or the article religious persecution. aprock (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Textbook example of an unsourced original essay. It's not all bad — just not encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A textbook example of not following WP:BEFORE. A search for sources immediately demonstrates the notability of the topic as there are entire books written about it such as St. Augustine's attitude to religious coercion; Religious coercion in Israel; Religious coercion in the Later Roman empire.  It is our policy to improve articles about notable topics, not to delete them.  And it is not clear what the nomination means by portmanteau.  Is this a cut/paste nomination made without proper understanding of the topic and title? Warden (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * textbook example is the textbook example here. Just because two words occur frequently together does not mean that together they establish a separate notable concept. As such, we don't have an article on textbook example. Religious coercion is another example of this. aprock (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it's worth noting that the article Religious coercion in Israel is also unsourced and likely not notable as separate from the general topic discussed in the section Religion in Israel which is also very poorly sourced and appears to be WP:OR. aprock (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As we have entire books written about religious coercion it is safe to say that there is at least one notable topic here. Having surveyed the sources, my impression is that there are at least two clusters to this.  One is about religious coercion in early Christianity, as the religion was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire.  The other concerns modern Israel for which the Jewish religion has a special place.  The iddue also arises in the context of other religions such as Islam.  The common thread to these sub-topics is whether it is legitimate to coerce people into following a religion.  It is the converse of religious freedom and, of course, we have an article for that. Warden (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The generally understood sibling article to religious freedom is religious persecution. Merging the content at religious coercion to religious persecution sounds like a reasonable way of handling this non-notable portmanteau. aprock (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Religious persecution is an attack upon another religion.  Religious coercion is compelling people to follow your religion.  And, in any case, you're now talking about merger not deletion.  Game over. Warden (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When you have a moment, please do take the time to review WP:N. Topics which are not notable in and of themselves are not candidates for their own articles.  They can however be discussed in other articles which deal with that general subject matter. aprock (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This phrase, along with its inverse (secular coercion), is a frequently used phrase in English language Israeli media. --PiMaster3 talk 01:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is something covered in the news media. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and just read through the first results.   D r e a m Focus  21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added book source to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the book, it doesn't discuss religious coercion as a distinct concept from coercion of a religious nature. It does not define religious coercion as a separate concept, and it only uses the term four times as a basic compound noun.  The entire discussion occurs within the context of Louis XIV, and as such would be a fine source for that article. aprock (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Information from this source could be used in the History section of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Information from this source could be used in the History section of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not redirect it to forced conversion, which is a similar sort of idea ? --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty references in G Scholar and Gbooks. The article can be easily referenced and improved. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing this plenty of sources, none of them appear to be discussing religious coercion as a general topic independent of the events being covered. aprock (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2012 (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.