Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious controversy

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous. There are five deletes, 2 keeps and 1 redirect. Usually, I would not delete with such a vote count, but after reading the comments presented here, I feel the need to use my discretion a bit. First, there is no consensus that there should never be an article on this, indeed some of the "delete"s say that a more neutral article without original research should be put in its place, so therefore I will not turn this this page into a redirect. Furthermore, one of the two "keep"s said "but not in this form" and so there appears to be a consensus that there are serious issues with the article, and I therefore feel that an outright "no consensus keep" result cannot be justified either. Based upon that, I will call the result of this debate as delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious controversy
OK, this will seem a strange topic to delete, but here's the reason. It is too vaugue to write an article on this. The current one asserts that controversy is due to intolerance, but that's a POV, reductionist and partonizing (see my comments on article talkpage) - controversy can simply be honust and informed disagreements over truth claims. Religious controversy could include every type of informed (or uniformed) theological difference of opinion within, and between, religions - from 'what shall we sing in my church on sunday?' through 'is their a God/afterlife?' and 'shall we pray/teach evolution in school?' to 'who's going to hell?'. I wanted to redirect this somewhere - but any redirect is bound to be loaded - unless we redirect to religion itself. --Doc (?) 11:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to religion. I agree with the reasoning above. Any good article about this subject is bound to be either POV or original research. --Lomedae 12:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to classify this entry as nonsense: certainly POV. Examples provided aren't religious controversies, but are aspects of religion which the editor presumably has a personal beef with.  If there was anything of interest I would suggest a merge to religion or specific religions as appropriate. But there isn't. Delete. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but definitly not in this form, the topic is one that can be expanded on but the current text is completly POVHoratioVitero 15:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful if you could comment on what form you could see an article developing. My initial reaction was exactly as yours, but I could not think where this might go. --Doc (?) 15:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, it's a microessay. Gazpacho 16:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. With nowhere to take this, and no usefully non-duplicative NPOV content like to exist in the future, this is just a stringalong of a few examples to justify what is effective POV OR. -Splash 22:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep well written but could do with updating--Machtzu 23:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Controversy itself is self-explanatory Ryan Norton T 23:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked up the edit history: this thing started as a poorly worded dicdef, and I think the subsequent edits kind of hid that fact. The whole field is fraught with ambiguities.  Large controversies may cover up personal animosities, just as personal animosities may be motivated by genuine disagreements on religions.  The place this really needs to go to be NPOV is to an article in the realm of the anthropology of religion, but I don't know anyone who is writing that kind of analysis; if they are, we'd be up against some original research.  So I'm voting for Delete in the hopes that if someone wants to start a new article (BTW, I am not volunteering), they could do so with a better starting point. --KJPurscell 02:36, 31 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.