Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Listening Prayer

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 improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Listening Prayer

Listening Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

personal essay without sourcing and with lots of odd attacks on "witchcraft prayer" and the like; speculative and unverifiable bundle of idiosyncratic assertions Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment According to Google Books, this seems possibly to be a notable theological topic, with at least three books devoted to it. I am not in a position to judge whether the three books discuss the same topic, or just use the same words about different concepts. I am also not prepared to rewrite the article, and OrangeMike's assessment of the current state of the article is correct. Therefore, I will watch the debate, and recommend deleting the article later unless someone steps up to the plate and does a proper referenced rewrite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The current article is in sad shape, but the concept of listening prayer appears to be covered in significant detail with an entire book devoted to the subject as well as books with chapters or sections devoted to covering it like these: [1], [2], [3]. Also covered in religious media like [4], and [5]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep -- Despite being poorly written and unreferenced (except biblical citations), this has the potential to be a useful article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (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.