Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious fanaticism (2nd nomination)

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 --Haemo (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fanaticism

Religious fanaticism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article was suggested for deletion 2 years ago, and is still in a very bad state. As no-one is willing/able (lots of controversy) to clean it up it has become a repository for nonsense, flame-wars and uncited information.

p.s couldn't find a religious category. BananaFiend (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Probably jumping the gun here but if this article is deleted as per nom, then I feel this AfD should have little bearing on people who wish to recreate the article from the start. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I have a feeling that it would soon degenerate again, but that doesn't mean somebody won't take ownership and make something of a new article.. BananaFiend (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's a tautology as religions are inherently fanatical. And the current article does not seem to contain anything worth merging. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all religions are fanatical which requires intensity (much like lost in translation). One of the reasons this page is filled with nonsense is that kind of knee-jerk reaction - when it could be a good page instead. BananaFiend (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Arbitrary combination of words. What about football fanaticism, sex obssession, nationalistic fanaticism, food fanaticism and millions other things with millions of fanatics? `'Míkka>t 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  Someone ought to write articles on those things. Z00r (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or merge useful content elsewhere. The article is in terrible shape, that's sure, but this AfD raises no issues worthy of deletion. Needed work isn't a reason to delete it (see WP:NOEFFORT). I'll try to get started cleaning it up and sourcing things tomorrow. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent, but the reason I've put this up for deletion is because people have tried and failed for 2 years to raise it from the quagmire it's in. It's not that there is no effort (which is not a reason for deletion), there has been 'tremendous effort. It's that it is consistently a battleground for <ahem> fanatics, who have created an article that is unfit for inclusion in wikipedia (YMMV) BananaFiend (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Page protection, then. It's drastic, yeah, but better than deletion. But first I gotta' see what I can do. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• As an ademdum, I'm sure that this could be whittled down a valid stub if necessary. Protection might still be necessary if it keeps attracting POV-pushers and vandalism. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that the consensus here seems to be to delete, however if you're willing to make a go at saving it, I'd like to help, I'll open a discussion on the page about it, and we can have a look at what can be done? BananaFiend (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Colonel Warden's rationale.

+ Comment All faith-based religions require uncritical devotion. And that's the defintion of being fanatical. As a charismatic Christian, I should know. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment we should probably take this discussion elsewhere: but from merriam webster and princeton wordnet, it requires "excessive" enthusiasm - I can be unquestioning in my belief that wikipedia is not edited by alien life-forms, but I'm hardly fanatical about it :) (or even that sure come to think of it) BananaFiend (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Personal kidding aside, more than being merely arbitrary (as Míkka correctly points out), the word fanaticism is too often used with a jocular or pitiable meaning. For instance, Winston Churchill said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Such prevalent jocularity extends back onto the word Religious in the phrase "Religious fanaticism." Perhaps such a pitiable meaning goes too far in interpreting Colonel Warden above, yet our concerns definitely agree that these two words don't belong together as the topic of an encyclopedic article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOEFFORT. It's also hard to believe that some in this discussion claim religious fanaticism is nonnotable. Z00r (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, many articles are "repositories" for nonsense, flame wars and uncited information. AFD is not for cleanup. And Wikipedia has no deadline. Google Scholar and Google Book turn up many sources that can be used to write an article on this topic. --Pixelface (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, regardless of the state of the article this is a crazy encyclopedic topic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think there is any doubt about the encyclopedic worthiness of this article. Religious fanaticism exists as a concept and is often referenced in every day speech and the media, true the article is in abysmal shape now and yes it is a controversial topic, but I don't think those are reasons enough to delete this. The Dominator (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I could and may change my mind to keep.--Firefly322 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While I started this nomination, I am currently working to save the page (delicious irony!) - I know there is no deadline but I believe that when the cleanup is finished it will require effort to keep it "clean" BananaFiend (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Final Comment This page has undergone some cleanup, and my thoughts have not changed - this is an incendiary, and ill-defined topic that has attracted much vandalism and flaming. At the moment it is simply a list of the worst elements of the 3 abrahamic religions. I would suggest that this information can be merged into other topics if it is important enough. BananaFiend (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge all current content into related articles, but allow recreation of the page at any point in the future if someone finds enough information on it to merit its own neutral, verified article. Right now, it simply contains too little real content and too much original research to merit its own article. Yes, an article being in a bad state is a reason for cleanup, not deletion, but what neutral, well-sourced content it contains right now is little more than a dictionary definition. Merging and allowing recreation will allow us to keep all the good content and leave things open for future improvement. Perhaps even make an intentional red link to the page from the places it's merged to in order to encourage addition of further information? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly good topic. Article needs major improvements, and those who object to its presence might more usefully help edit it. We do not avoid incendiary topics. We do not avoid topics that are much vandalized. DGG (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thought the above was a final comment before judgement was made. I'm not suggesting it for deletion because it's incendiary, and I'm not suggesting it for deletion because it's vandalised (which it actually isn't overly much) - I'm suggesting it for deletion because despite efforts made for years, it is both a poor article and a repository for nonsense. When stripped down to factual information it is little better than a dictionary definition and a collection of information about religious groups that can be put into their respective religion's articles. There are few (if any) scholarly sources of information on this topic. That said, I have more usefully helped to edit it. BananaFiend (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (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.