Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theological hermeneutics


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Theological hermeneutics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article consists of nothing more than a definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bigvernie (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Then expand the article. Passers-by, click on the Google Books link above and see how notable the topic is. Article needs expansion (and possibly Biblical hermeneutics needs to be merged into it). BTW, Wikipedia needs editors who can write and tag. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment. There are Biblical hermeneutics and there are Talmudical Hermeneutics, marginally related. I don't see much use of Theological hermeneutics except as a pointer to these two articles (and, if "theology" is reduced to "Christian", a redirect). East of Borschov 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm inclined to agree with East of Borschov. An article on theological hermeneutics is certainly notable, and we don't delete stubs just because they are not yet a good article.  But I wonder what this article can say that isn't already said in Biblical hermeneutics and Talmudical hermeneutics.  As for Drmies's suggestion, I would say that any merging should happen in the opposite direction, as "Biblical hermeneutics" is the more common term for what I think this article would describe.  The book linked as a reference isn't available on Google Books, however, so I can't tell if this is the same thing as the other hermeneutics articles. RJC  TalkContribs 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about what the 'common' term is--but it seems to me that "theological" is bigger than "biblical", and that the larger should contain the smaller. Plus, East, I wouldn't want to reduce 'theological' to 'Christian.' Drmies (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Theological" may be the more logical adjective, but WP:NOR prevents even such an innocuous correction of common usage. The rule in WP:COMMONNAME suggests using biblical, even if theological would be more correcter.  RJC  TalkContribs 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth: Colonel Warden was discussing the very point of whether this was just an alternative, less common, name for Biblical hermeneutics on the article's talk page (q.v.) before this AFD nomination interrupted. Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Uncle--that's worth something. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so reading Claritas' objections to a merge from the talk page, "Biblical" covers only the Bible, "Talmudical" covers the orthodox Jewish approach, but "Theological" could conceivably cover Islam. I unfortunately can't read the books entitled Theological Hermeneutics to determine whether they use the phrase synonymously with "biblical hermeneutics," however.  This seems important because we need a reliable source that would limit the content of the article.  Discussing Christian, Jewish, and Islamic hermeneutics in the same article might seem too obvious to sustain an objection of original research, but a problem arises with other sacred texts that are not foundational in the same way.  Dhammapada hermeneutics?  Tao Te Ching hermeneutics?  Saying that these share (or do not share) the hermeneutical concerns that animate Judaism, Christianity, and Islam such that they should (or should not) all be discussed together would be original research.  So, unless these books use "theological hermeneutics" in a blanket way, not just as a synonym for "biblical hermeneutics" (I suspect they really just mean "protestant hermeneutics"), I don't think we can have an article that uses it in a blanket way.  Even if some sources do attest to such a blanket usage, however, it may violate WP:NPOV to have an article whose structure suggests that the texts of Taoism or Theravada Buddhism may be discussed in the same manner as Jewish, Christian, or Islamic texts (not because they are "wrong," but because it is not clear that adherents would consider that these have "scriptures" in the same way as the three monotheistic religions).   RJC  TalkContribs 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just added a section on Islamic hermeneutics. I don't think that the fact (or possibility) that some religions may not have a hermeneutic system (or a scripture) should stand in the way of considering that the hermeneutics of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are forms of theological hermeneutics. This discussion is very useful, and suggests that the concerns may be very different in different religions, but that doesn't mean that it is OR to consider Islamic hermeneutics as theological hermeneutics. Really, Islamic hermeneutics should have its own (main) article; right now I don't have the time to do the library work necessary to write a lead for this article. Claritas should do that, and I'm assuming that they have access to the book that you and I can't read online. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy - this was a requested article a few months back, so I created a stub. I've been preoccupied with other matters recently, so I haven't had time to work on it, and I'm on holiday at the moment, with limited internet access. Once I've sorted out some other business, I'll do some work on this. Essentially, this article should cover all hermeneutical systems of major religions in summary, with links to their respective articles. I notice there's no article on Islamic hermeneutics, so once I and others have fleshed out the structure a bit, I'll split some of Drmies's good work and expand (maybe for DYK). If there are any genuine issues with the article (which I doubt), I wouldn't object to it being moved into my userspace. In any case, the topic clearly meets WP:GNG - plenty of coverage. Per WP:NODEADLINE, short stubs which define a topic are preferable to no coverage at all, and I'll make an effort to write some content once I've got access to the relevant works. Claritas § 09:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Dabify to the three religions' hermeneutics and Create article for Islamic hermeneutics or expand Qur'anic hermeneutics with the refs in the current article.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A neologism doesn't get 1,300+ results in Google Scholar. These include "theological hermeneutics" as applied to Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and comparisons between them. This really could make for an interesting article, and not just a pointer to the different "X hermeneutics" articles. First Light (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Change the article's title to Islamic hermeneutics. Definitely do not merge with other religions. Methodology differs and would simply confuse readers seeking specific research techniques and study processes. Cindamuse (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Qur'anic hermeneutics. As I said under my comment above, I don't think that we can discuss all of the various hermeneutical methods side-by-side without running afoul of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, even if this would be an interesting article.  Dab pages are for articles that could in principle have the same name, which is not true of Talmudical, Biblical, and Islamic hermeneutics.  Whoever performs the merge should make sure that this article does not redirect toward the new one.   RJC  TalkContribs 03:55, 2 August 2010 (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.