Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditionalism (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. Consensus appears to be that the sources discussing the concept are not enough to justify the article, and that it tends to violate other policies/guidelines as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Traditionalism (religion)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was split from Tradition in 2011 and since then has served as a platform for various editors to express their opinions about the concept, with periodic trimming and insertion of OR. It is redundant with the dab Traditionalism, which gives a dictionary definition and various technical uses. The latest expansion of the article is a sustained exercise in WP:SYNTH, amounting to a broadside against "hidebound" forms of religion with jumbled references to various everyday and technical uses of the term. This grand narrative is not based on any source, and it is supplemented by various misuses of primary and secondary sources, including disregarding them altogether, as exemplified by this edit. I don't see evidence of enough RS coverage of religious traditionalism as a coherent concept to base an article on, but even if there were, its current form needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. Eperoton (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The concept of traditionalism is widely used for, and applied to all religions, in our days. The term only derived from Catholicism. And the concept is always the same in all religions: Rejection of reason in favour of tradition. The spread of usage of the concept for all kinds of religion is expressed e.g. in the following given source Roger Homan: Traditionalism in: Robert Wuthnow (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, Vol. 1, Routledge 1998; p. 737. --IbnTufail (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the only cited RS that actually tries to discuss religious traditionalism as a coherent concept, and the pages visible in preview show that its treatment of the topic is far removed from your reductive and polemical take. Eperoton (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will accept the outcome of this, whatever it is. I think, it is more a question of lexicographic philosophy than of the thing itself. --IbnTufail (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR magnet, sadly - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NAD, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. The sources cited prove a number of miscellaneous points which can only be tied together by the uncited and unciteable portions of text in the article. Source point out, for example, that traditionalism exists and it has a meaning; they also point out that various religions use the term...and that's about it. Claims that other religions actually adopted it from Catholicism aren't cited and likely aren't provable, and claims that the concept of traditionalism in various religions share anything in common would be a great research project for someone's MA, but that doesn't form an encyclopedic article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary disambiguation page in disguise that is indeed redundant to Traditionalism (disambiguation) and its subpages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2016 (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.