Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limits to religious freedom

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limits to religious freedom

This page is original research, and apparently somewhat pointless. It was created by Sirkumsize, and then linked to from Circumcision, after the same text was removed from that article[1]. It should be deleted. - Jakew 21:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence reads "The purpose of this article is to explore philosphical views on whether and when it is acceptible for a state to limit religious freedoms of its citizen." Unless someone can show me otherwise, this looks like a delete as original research. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I encourage Sirkumsize to work on existing articles instead of creating these small, over-general articles. You should also take another look at the original research policy, as well as WP:NPOV. Rhobite 00:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wikibooks Issue Guide, where it could maybe be put to good use. Tuf-Kat 00:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article is a stub that could become a larger more comprehensive article. It is NPOV. References can be found for existing work in it. There is a precidence for wikipedia articles of this nature. Sirkumsize 01:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also this page provides a religious counterpart to the medical Bioethics of neonatal circumcision page. Sirkumsize 01:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But it doesn't mention circumcision at all. It has no references, either. Rhobite 02:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • This article is a stub. The issue of limits to religious freedom is a broad subject that goes beyond the circumcision issue. Sirkumsize 02:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's the rough draft for a high-school essay. Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Issue Guide: Religious circumcision of children (since that what this is really about). --Angr 05:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Everything this article could ever hope to cover is already better covered at Freedom of Religion. DaveTheRed 05:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 07:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this stub already better covered as part of Freedom of Religion. −Woodstone 14:20, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't see the part in that article where limitations are discussed. Sirkumsize 15:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, original research, anything of value already covered better elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, The question of limits to religious freedom is far wider than male circumcision. It includes such issues as the right to refuse blood transfusions and other practices that touch on people's religious beliefs. For example, Orthodox Jews and Muslims have rules about the slaughtering of animals. These practices may conflict with other people's demands for painless killing of animals. In Australia and America some pharmacists will not deal in birth control methods or sell condoms. This conflicts with the right of others to use these devices. Whose rights should prevail? These are the issues that need to be canvassed in an article on the limits of religious freedom.Michael Glass 01:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bravo Michael Glass. Please feel free to enhance the main article by adding these points. Sirkumsize 03:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At the present time, the entire article is either POV or Original Research, both of which are unacceptable. I'm sure all the other "Delete" votes will be happy to join me in reconsidering its validity at such time as the article has some content that does not violate basic wikipedia policy on these and other potential problems, including abuse. I agree with Michael Glass and Angr that there is potential for the article, but nothing currently contained in the article qualifies as such. Tuf-Kat's idea also has merit...but still only with the same caveat that the current material is essentially, as Calton so succinctly puts it, really only hen-scratching for the outline of a High School-level persuasion essay, and all of it, as I've already said, POV or OR, neither of which are worthy of inclusion as even a {stub}. Tomer ^TALK 06:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same reasons as above. As far as I know, in political theory and in law, the issue is not the "limits" of religious freedom per se but rather the boundary between and definition of the public and private spheres. It would be good to have an article exploring contemporary critiques of the modern liberal state from the view of theorists like Taylor, or critiques of the multiplication of minority rights and the intrusion of the private into the public by theorists like Barry -- but this article is not it, nor is it set up to be it. It is an opinion piece fluffed up to imitate an encyclopedia article by using weasel terms like "some people" without every specifiying who those people are. It's just a personal essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an opinion piece Fawcett5 04:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very obvious POV to attack religion. SF2K1 06:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesMLane 00:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --EnSamulili 13:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that most comments on this board have been votes for deletion. Considering what was in the stub, this is a perfectly understandable reaction. However, I am convinced that the article can grow into something far more important than its somewhat inauspicious beginnings would suggest. I would suggest that people have another look at it now. I think that most would conclude that the article is no longer an attack on religion. Nor is it simply a dispute about the rights and wrongs of circumcision. Michael Glass 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats, now it's an anti-circumcision opinion piece. Bang-up job. My vote remains the same. Rhobite 03:06, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.