Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and slavery

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 of the debate was Keep but bring down to a stub (presumably, this means remove all the stuff marked as "citation needed"). Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and slavery

This article has a heck of a lot of original research, is very long, convoluted, has large chunks of POV, and has never been successfully re-written or edited down. I was hoping to get some other opinions about it and see if other editors feel, as I do, that Wikipedia is not the place for it to live. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The accurate info should be moved to either religion specific versions of this page ie islam and slavery or christianity and slavery, or the info should be placed into the main pages about the religions but that will take a LOT of time, energy and reverts. Other than those outcomes this must stay as it is important information on the "holiness" of the variouse religions.Hypnosadist 20:18, 30 June 2006

(UTC)

Hypnosadist, can you make your vote explicit? - Merzbow 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic. Tevildo /20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stub. The content should be blanked and the article stubbed. I think 'religion and slavery' is a notable enough topic to deserve an encyclopedic discussion. - Merzbow 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was really too lazy to put any sourced content in the stub. I don't recall anything salvageable being in the original, so just nuke it. - Merzbow 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stub Hypnosadist 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'keep and stub (Delete, then create a stub with current section headings). A poor quality article attracts poor quality edits. With essentially a full year of editing, some of it by solid contributors, this still hasn't gotten good. Losing the history gives us a better chance of starting afresh. GRBerry 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Essentially a giant essay (some content might go well elsewhere). SM247^{My Talk} 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stub per GRBerry. Penelope D 04:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Merge and cut down relevant material with Slavery article. (incidentally this article is mislabelled as it only talks about Abrahamic_religions) Bwithh 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. Call it unsourced if necessary. Unuseful information. Probably misleading. -Ste|vertigo 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just changed my above vote, realizing it was entirely stupid. Vote: Remove from VFD and change to Split, split to relevant sections. -Ste|vertigo 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment much of these issues are dealt with in Slavery in antiquity and Christian views of slavery. I do not believe that having an article POV is grounds for deletion. Jon513 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• I favor deletion, but nothing prevents the keep-and-stub club from doing exactly that even as the AfD is ongoing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The new "stub" is obviously without content and should be a straightforward merge into Slavery - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it has been rewritten as a stub by Merzbow. (I expect expansion with citations.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 08:58Z
• Strong Keep. I think that a well-written article on this subject is more useful for someone researching slavery than them having to run off to different religions' articles and search for where (if?) the information has been stored. The development of Slavery ...and its eventual decline (though sadly not abolition) is undeniably strongly linked with the various world religions. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dweller (talk • contribs) 2006-07-07 03:24:23 (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.