Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious violence

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 and stubify by removing all original research and unsourced references to living persons. Bearian 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious violence[edit]

Appears to be nothing but WP:OR or WP:SYN, possibly WP:DICDEF. The article's own intro admits it's a "term whose use is generally very imprecise. It is commonly encountered in the media and popular discourse to cover a large variety of phenomena." It cites no sources nor could it since it is the editors' original ideas and a synthesis of subjects which are not treated together in a notable way in secondary sources. Its defects can't be fixed and it should be deleted. Mamalujo 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poorly writting page but still the page should exist...Shniken1 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Religious violence is clearly a notable topic, so widely covered that this article could be copiously referenced. Parts of the article seem to reflect POV or even to be incorrect, but they can be rephrased or, if necessary, removed. "If [a] page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (See WP:DP). Moreover, "If there's anything useful towards a good article, the article should be improved, not deleted" (See WP:NOEFFORT). Valerius 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete After searching, I agree that there's no similar page out there, but this is indeed an essay that tries to include everything, with a spectrum of "violence" running from a sacrificial lamb one end, to 9/11 on the other, with the common thread being that religion is used as an excuse for violence. Whoever tries to clean this up has a lot of work ahead of them. Mandsford 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Weak because I have no idea how I can help improve the article. Keep per Valerius. I think the article needs an entire Wikiproject to overhaul. I'll ask WP:RELIGION if they can help.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 10:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources are cited and the style (written like an essay) gives clear indications of it being original research and synthesis. → AA ^(talk) — 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a bit of POV here as well; I would consider circumcision of someone else to be more "violent" than flagellation of oneself, though both are done in the name of religion Mandsford 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify The topic is notable, but Wikipedia article should not cobble together science fiction and other unreliable viewpoints in an original way as this one does. I would stubbify the article and await a better-sourced, more neutral presentation. A future reliable article should identify a thesis -- e.g. that some people claim there is a relationship between religion and violence -- include arguments both for and against that claim, and reliably source and attribute these arguments. An article entitled Democratic party sexual harassment that cobbled together newspaper reports of sexual harassement by Democratic party members and combined it with non-reliably sourced claims that sexual harassment represents a Democratic practice and that Democratic beliefs and ethos tend to promote engaging in it would have similar WP:OR problems. Better to present reliably sourced claims of correlation together with opposing views, as well as reliably sourced information about any specific practices and claims Best, --Shirahadasha 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although WP:BLP addresses only living persons, I believe that articles primarily presenting criticism of others' institutions, beliefs, practices, etc. generally should have heightened reliability and sourcing standards, particularly on controversial matters, to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. WP:NOT#CENSORED, but WP:NOT#SOAP either. I am particularly concerned, for example, that the article's only statement specifically mentioning Islam is from a science fiction novel. We cannot afford to be this careless. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above discussions have not refuted the original research and synthesis criticisms. As such, I think any admin or editor who closes the discussion should disregard those opinions advocating keeping the article. The problem (which no one has yet refuted) is that the article conflates all kinds of unrelated activities: terrorism, ritual mutilation, human and animal sacrifice, and sectarian violence. There is no support whatsoever for this synthesis having been done by anyone other than the editors. I don't believe this grouping of diverse types of acts, treated together, could be found in reliable unbiased sources. They might be treated separately, all of which separate treatement use the phrase "religious violence", but they are not treated together in a notable way. The idea was conceived and cobbled together by the editors and no one else. Without a showing that this conflation of all these diverse types of phenomenon are treated together in a notable way by secondary sources, this article plainly fails based on original research and synthesis not withstanding any number of "votes" to keep it. Mamalujo 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails original research, possibly other areas too. Springnuts 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until there has been a chance to explore the topic further. This is clearly a notable term and a notable topic both in mass culture and in academia. Presently the entry is unreferenced and possibly bordering on WP:OR because of the lack of references. I might agree with the idea of deleting the content and making a stub entry, but I don't think this nomination was the right course of action given that no other course of action was taken first. For instance, the tags about original research and the lack of references only went up after the AfD nomination--see here. I've added several books to the further reading section written on various aspects of this topic by prominent academics. I hope that helps someone get started on improving it.PelleSmith 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps stubbify to remove OR. The topic is certainly notable enough for an article, even if this article presents as many problems as it does. John Carter 22:57, 23 October 2007 (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.