Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scripture alone the source of authority


 * 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. Seems like the discussion here boils down to whether this concept exists in other religions and whether it thus isn't original research, whether this is a well written page, and whether it is notable in Wikipedia terms. On the first question, it seems like it's debatable whether the concept is shared among the cited religions, the second as noted isn't really a deletion rationale as has been noted, on the third it seems like there is no evidence. Thus delete, given that no sources have been provided (or even suggested) that discuss this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Scripture alone the source of authority

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG. This article only re-states sentences from other articles specific to particular traditions. This subject hasn't really been discussed across faiths s everything here is redundant to sola scriptura, Quranism, Karaism, and Nichiren Buddhism. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The article is about a common aspect found in various religions. This common aspect is noted in the articles on sola scriptura and quranism. I found it fascinating, so I made an article about it. Oct13 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been an editor since 2011. You should know to read WP:N before just writing about something because you find it fascinating. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is "mentioned" on those pages in the sense that you recently  added it [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quranism&diff=899081975&oldid=898432447], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quranism&diff=899081975&oldid=898432447] as a "See also" link.  Sheesh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's keep this to the point. From my experience in editing religious articles for three years on Wikipedia now, my impression is that literalism and fundamentalism (in the scholarly sense) with regard to scriptures is found in many religious traditions, and that such phenomenon have been studied scholarly and from multi-religious perspectives. The title of this article is quite awkward though. I'd say Keep.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you bring any actual sources?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Transform to disambiguation page simply listing those articles it has until now copied from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not. I am not at all persuaded that this phrase is in wide use to describe streams of Buddhism, Judaism or Islam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tgeorgescu. Oct13 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But can you find any scholarly or other WP:RS discussions to support the concept that this is a thing? I mean scholars who write that a similar sola scripturs approach is found in these four theologically distinctive religions?  to me this begins to look like a concept and phrase being pushed by lone Wikipedia user.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This article needs some credible resources to support the notion without appealing to it, such as something academic about the concept itself and how it is common across multiple belief systems. If a few of these sorts of sources were added, then I agree and suggest Keep --- FULBERT (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ESSAY and  WP:TNT Article is too simplistic to keep.  This new, single-editor page takes a doctrine, Sola scriptura that originated with Martin Luther and simplistically – and with very little support from scholarly sources – imposes it on Buddhism, Judaism and Islam.
 * Buddhism: The description of Nichiren Buddhism as adhering to Sola scriptura is wrong. I am happy to be corrected by scholars of Buddhism.
 * Judaism: section is nonsense. All of traditional/Orthodox Judaism believes that scripture is authoritative, Kararites differ from mainstream Judaism on the method of interpreting scripture. Then comes the sourced sentence: "Karaite Jews interpret their scripture according to peshat, the plain meaning of the text understood by the ancient Israelite authors". In fact, the Kraites were/are one of the competing sects of "ancient Israelite authors,"  all of whom conceived themselves as understandig the text correctly.
 * Christianity: This concept started with Luther, who was a Christian. Page fails to present a sophisticated understanding to the concept in Christianity.
 * Islam: page asserts: "Quranism is the Islamic sect that believes the Quran is the sole religious authority in the sharia and rejects the hadiths." Where to start? Perhaps with the assertion that Quranism is a "sect", rather than a scholarly and theological approach.
 * Note that page creator has created a number of heavily templated pages that rely on PRIMARY sourcing, and on simplistic and piously literal understandings of complex topics: Death penalty in the Bible, List of Legends in the Quran,  Divine Mercy Novena, Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries, and more .  Other pages created lack sourcing to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is in Buddhist history what Gregory Schopen called "the Cult of the Book", which is a trend in Mahayāna Buddhist schools like Nichiren to devote themselves and pay homage to a scripture in similar style to how other Buddhists would pay homage to a Buddha image or a religious monument. Though I am uncertain whether depicting the Nichiren Buddhists as accepting scripture alone as the source of authority is completely correct, it is not far from the truth. See also the sources at Faith in Buddhism. What's your take on this, ?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This new, single-editor page takes a doctrine, Sola scriptura that originated with Martin Luther ... imposes it on Buddhism: Buddhism was influenced much by Protestant ideas during the 19th and 20th century. This historical trend is known as Buddhist modernism or Protestant Buddhism. See also Faith in Buddhism. Part of this was an emphasis on scripture to defend Buddhism against criticism from Christian missionaries.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * comment This article was such a blatant violation of WP:ESSAY, so poorly written, that at first I did not look at sources on the page, rather, I looked to see if I could source it. I just looked at that page and I am appalled.  The Buddhism section is single sourced to a Welsh memoir about building Buddhism in Wales.  The Judaism section is single sourced to a "collection of sermons and tracts" published in 1788.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but quality of article does not pertain to notability of subject.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with E.M.Gregory, This new, single-editor page takes a doctrine, Sola scriptura that originated with Martin Luther ... imposes it on Buddhism and other religions.  Without multiple independent reliable secondary sources, the article proposes an original idea: Scripture alone the source of authority is "a common aspect found in various religions." The idea appears to be plausible but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:Synthesis).  JimRenge (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and rename religious textual literalism such as biblical literalism --E.3 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: OK E.3. You have won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be that such an article on religious textual literalism can be written and adequately sourced, but there has been no evidence offered that it can be.  Meanwhile,  the page as it now stands is so woefully inadequate as to be a disgrace to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; why are you choosing to keep an article that doesn't exist? I've nominated the article you see now, not a possible article that could be written if somebody gathered sources. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletion isn't a form of cleanup. I think the article should have discussion of the title and then improved, Reason for deletion #6 seems to be your closest suggestion but surely there's reliable sources out there. Just need to find contributors to find them! --E.3 (talk)
 * Have to agree with E.3 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that deletion is not cleanup. If someone would like to write an article on religious textual literalism and provide sources to show the subject is generally notable, that's fine. What we have here is an article about scripture alone and I haven't found sources that make the subject pass WP:GNG. You might imagine such an article but without sources, it does not and shall not exist. The idea that "surely there's reliable sources out there" without even two such sources provided is wishful thinking. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note That the burden of evidence  falls on those wishing for inclusion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two different concepts. It is not an asset to the project when editors write pages, or propose to add pages about concepts regarding which htey have not invested the time to gain some degree of mastery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they appear to be different concepts. JimRenge (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

For those who wish to keep the article, there should first be agreement on how the principle of scripture onlyshould be called when applied to any religion, following reliable sources. The current title of the article is awkward. If and when such a name can be found and agreed on, notability can be checked. Religious literalism has been rejected, any other suggestions?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not the choice of a name. It is the fact that your assertion that there is a specific, reliably defined, theological approach to scripture shared by reliably defined groups of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Christians is WP:UNSOURCED. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I have done some digging, and found evidence of discussions of the authority of scripture throughout the multi-religious spectrum: Christian, Buddhist and multi-religious. But I couldn't find any scholarly discussion of what would amount to sola scriptura in other religions. In Sri Lanka during the Buddhist revival, as well as in Burma, there was more emphasis on reading Buddhist texts by oneself as opposed to having a monk explain them to you, and some scholars like Gombrich in his book Buddhism Transformed have connected this with influence from Protestantism: "[P]rotestant Buddhism undercuts the importance of the religious professional ... the distinction between the sangha (monastic community) is thus blurred ..." It is now for us to decide whether such similarities are sufficient to consider this article, or the phenomenon it describes, as notable.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 19:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftify The article is too simplistic to be in mainspace, but the general topic is viable. It needs rewriting by someone who understands the concept and how the various religions apply it--several such people have commented here. We did not 12 years ago have a good way to dealwith incomplete butpotentially viable article, but now we do: Draft Space.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 4 June 2019 (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.