Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revealed religion


 * 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

Revealed religion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Unattributed Original Research Avi 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unsure what to make of it but I don't think outright delete is correct.  Several dictionaries have returned results on the word revealed religion, so perhaps a transwiki to Wiktionary.   Dooms  Day349  21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but what does "temporal lobe epilepsy" got to do with it? Yechiel Man 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Good point. I've removed that and a couple other POV-sounding "see also" links.  In the event that this article is kept, they might be suitable for a "Criticisms" section.    ◄    Zahakiel    ►   14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The term should be KEEP but the current article is Delete. It is a useful term that was used in the 18th century to distinguish natural religion from revealed relgion. The entry would be linked to David Hume and Moses Mendelssohn - the addition of the God template as found on Natural Theology and with outside links to an enclyclopedia of philosophy. But the author of the entry is connecting it to the current research on Bicameralism and Neurotheology which explain how revelation is possible. The article as it stands has Original Research and seems to be a COI pitch for the Bahai faith. I would trim it back to a stub and wait for someone to write the appropriate article. --Jayrav 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Added point it should have the two categories: THEOLOGY, Religious philosophy and doctrine,--Jayrav 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The term is one I recognise. The definition and explanation of it seem adequate to me.  It is not a single word and so will not fit easily into the dictionary.  I would not object to it being transwikified, but think that would result in the loss of some of the content.  No doubt some more references would be useful, but the solution to that is an "unreferenced" tag, not appearance as an AFD.   Peterkingiron 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 05:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine. The term is known in theology and is legitimate. Classical Judaism is built on Revelation at Sinai (note that the latter redirects unashamedly to Ten Commandments.) This therefore makes it significant for Christianity and Islam, the two religions most based on Judaism. See also Articles for deletion/Revelation at Sinai where it was decided to keep and redirect "Revelation at Sinai" to the subject of the Ten Commandments. Nuff said. IZAK 05:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any sourced material with Revelation. This article seems to be mostly a duplication of the content of the Revelation article. --Shirahadasha 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — If anything's useful, merge it with Revelation per Shirahadasha. If there's any merit to identifying "revealed religions," it seems like it should be in a category, not an article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Origional research--Sefringle 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK. --Rabbeinu 08:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - I didn't see anything in this article that wasn't covered in the more complete (and well-referenced) Revelation article - including the lack of importance in Eastern religions such as Taoism. Refining this will only lead to further redundancies; a passing mention of the comparison with syncretism in Revelation will give readers all they need on this topic.  Even some of the Keeps above seem to suggest that redirect is the precedent in cases like this... and that solution makes sense to me.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - At this stage, it fails Neutrality, Verifiablity and Originality. That's a trifecta of shortcomings. This is not a notability issue, but a fundamentally flawed article on a neologism issue - Tiswas (t) 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the recent references are a start, but they are not specific, and the article is a synthesis of these. - Tiswas (t) 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that the two key issues that this article adds to the picture -- natural religion as theological discourse on the distinction between "revealed religion" and "natural religion", mostly in the 18th century, and (b) "neurotheology" as claims of neurological explanations for mental phenomena subjectively experienced as religious phenomena (one wonders what to call claims of neurological explanations for mental phenomena subjectively experienced as scientific theories). Both make sense as sections of the Revelation article. If they grow enough to deserve their own articles, they could be split off at that time. --Shirahadasha 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete NOR and it is otherwise nonsense. --Buridan 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect per Zahakiel. Timotheos 19:31, 6 June 2007 (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.