Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Nomination withdrawn following rewrite by Michaelas10. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender and religion

It pains me to nominate this - a worthy subject for an encyclopedia if ever there was one. But this is currently a combination list-farm and original research. The subject is currently spread across a dozen or more articles, many of them in the Cat:Religious feminism. Given what's here, it would be better to start from scratch with this. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn after good work by Michaelas10. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Cancel and instead use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion Someone ought to actually take the time to make an article. This should be a wakeup call. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 00:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 02:19Z
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Grutness, if you think this subject is encyclobedic, then why don't you work on the article to improve it instead of AfDing it? I see a lot of these kinds of nominations, where their first reaction is to AfD the article instead of improve it, and I just don't get their reasoning. - Lex 05:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about everything. I think this is likely to be an encyclopedic subject, but it's not one that I know enough about to write much more than is already there. It needs work from experts in the field to make it worthwhile - and I am not one of those experts. Also, as I pointed out, this is already covered in a number of other articles around wikipedia; those articles may be sufficient. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Quarl. Dekimasu 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic topic in this guise and open to original research: what is it supposed to cover exactly? If someone wishes to migrate discussions of gender within individual religion articles to a general overview of the topic, that might be ok, but there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. This will almost certainly end up being a hodge-podge of indiscriminate facts. Eusebeus 11:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep fascinating. Need more work in it, though. Anomo 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom without prejudice to encyclopedic recreation; this would actually work better as a category right now, I think. Sandstein 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Come on guys, the article was just created, and within 4 hours it was tagged for deletion. As stated, it's an encyclopedic topic - by definition it should not be deleted, at most it should be stubified and rebuilt. Themindset 21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a subject taught at universities and there are hundreds of book on it. -newkai t-c 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Themindset. bibliomaniac15 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Themindset. Hello32020 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with sandstein that this article would work better as a category. It's basically serving the same purpose right now with links to a bunch of different main articles. Also, the text that is there is OR. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs Count 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article is in a bad state, but that can be fixed. Let's not delete an article about a good topic just because it's poorly written. N Shar 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I agree entirely with Sandstein and largely with Eusebeus, and I'd observe that, in any case, whilst there is most probably an encyclopedic article that could exist under this title, there is nothing in the instant article the salvaging of which would be aid one in crafting a new article. In situations such as this, I don't think keep and cleanup to be particularly useful, principally because the article is essentially devoid of content, such that there's nothing to cleanup; expansion, of course, along encyclopedic lines, in quite fine, but during the pendency of such process an unencyclopedic article need not to exist. Perhaps a listing at WP:RA is in order, although I suppose stubbification per Themindset isn't particularly harmful (at least should we conclude that an article [cf., a category] apropos of the topic can reasonably and properly be crafted). Joe 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I'm not clear on what this is attempting to cover. Gender discussions will be different depending on the religion, and perhaps even the context in which that religion is being practiced. Other issues raised already have articles on Wikipedia (many of which can be seen on this page). There may be a good article to be had at this title, but the one developing here just isn't it. GassyGuy 09:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't think the article should be a complete list of other articles (or list-farm), but it's worthy enough a topic to expand. However/Unfortunately, someone has to be devoted enough to do so. - SpLoT 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be willing to give the originator a couple of months to fix this article, but right now it is mostly a list of links to other articles and the commentary is unverified and unsourced. I've tagged it for failing WP:V. If this is not rectified it should be AfD'd again in 30-60 days.--Isotope23 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it appears to be a collection of related pages. --Alex (Talk) 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Cleanup and expand. People Powered 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not sure where the claim of "original research" is coming from: the page I read was almost a disambiguation style stub, pointing readers to more in depth discussions of various aspects of the subject in other articles. This strikes me as a valid approach to huge subjects whose details are best covered in detail elsewhere; see ecclesiology for another example. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs better summaries with some cites, but the links to subarticles is perfectly reasonable, and AfD shouldn't be a clean-up request. TheronJ 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as stub or disambiguation page, per above. Vectro 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cancel and instead use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, There is no reason this article should be deleted, other than it is poorly done. If it was put in a few projects, and requests were made to expand it, someone would, and it could be very informing.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, I've expanded it a little, it's current status is pretty much good enough. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I withdrew my delete suggestion above but I still do not suggest keeping. In the current state, the article is still unsourced with apparent OR. However, at this point, I believe that somebody with sufficient expertise could rewrite this article and make it encyclopedic. This will require a complete rewrite. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs Count 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've given some basic references. I can reference more if you would like. Michaelas10 (T|C) 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per newkai. Cynical 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - good work Michaelas - it certainly looks far better now that when I nominated it. As such, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 October 2006 (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.