Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious abuse

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious abuse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no solid referenced definition of what "religious abuse" is. One person's abuse is another's use. Is it abuse of religion to stand in a pulpit and tell congregants that unrepentant sinners are doomed to an awful eternity in Hell, or is that (as implied in the unreferenced lead of this article) abuse? Who tells it's one or the other? Similarly, it is considered a religious abuse to use your religion for politics or secular ends? Really, is the Roman Catholic Church's anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment stances, which seek to change secular law, an abuse of the religion, or merely living (or using) it? Any violent initiation rites are contended to be an abuse of religion - thus, are those religions that practice circumcision abusive per se? Continuing to read the drivel in the article, one finds that one can abuse religion even with the best of intention (where most ought think that abusers should at least know they're doing wrong), such as convincing someone's mom to leave hospital and put her health in God's hands through prayer. Frankly, this article is unsalvageable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a fair number of academic articles and books on "religious abuse". It is only to be expected that different authorities have differing ways to define "religious abuse". There are countless different definitions of "bullying" for example. This article is in a flabby state and there is a lot of room for improvement but no reason to delete it.--Penbat (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, should obviously be improved but this specific subject is notable and the article does not fall into any of the other criteria for deletion. We have some related articles on specific issue, but this could be a great article to cover the broader issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well referenced and the topic is well known though interpretations may vary. The forms of abuse are defined within the article creating scope for the definition given. It should be noted that the article is broad and might also include non traditional and lesser known belief systems not formally recognized as religions.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as a disambiguation page. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I envision something like what's at Ecclesiastical ordinances. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.