Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation (theology)

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 delete as the subject sufficiently covered by other articles. There is no need to fork the content. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation (theology)[edit]

This article is a summary of various creation myths (that already exist at creation myth). The intention of the original author was to write a content fork on the theology related to Creation according to Genesis, however the author retired not long after. The article has since been tagged for multiple issues for nearly a year now, and many of the editors on Talk:Creation (theology) have disputed the pages existence.

This article is a bit of a hopeless cause since there just isn't some overarching "theology of creation". Attached to each particular creation myth is the theology, the creation myth isn't attached to theology, and so organisation should be the other way around. This article should be deleted, and the theology related to each particular creation myth should be maintained at the respective creation myth's own page, for example, what is already happening at Creation according to Genesis. If these sections get too long (which I expect to happen for some creation myths over time), they should be spun off into their own separate articles, Creation according to Genesis (theology) for instance, per WP:SUMMARY. Creationism, theology and creation myths as a general concept, should still be maintained at those respective articles of course. Since this article contains nothing not already covered in the respective creation myth articles, there isn't anything to merge either. I've also checked What Links Here and in every case I checked, linking to either creation myth in general, or the particular creation myth (if there was already some context given) can easily be done, or in a few cases, to creationism.

In summary, I guess my point is we have Frogs in popular culture, not Popular culture (animals). Ben (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment This needs a merge discussion, perhaps, but I would be inclined to keep it, as an article of relatively intermediate specificity. DGG (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean the article could link creation and theology? Well theology includes the study of creation from a particular religions perspective, sure, but that study should be included in the particular creation myths article (since the study is dependant on a particular religion), applying WP:SUMMARY and forking off to subpages as necessary. It doesn't make sense to have this article any more than it makes sense to have God (theology), Frog (biology), etc. We have creation myth, creationism, and then creation according to genesis and so on which covers everything. Ben (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no references in the article that connect the creation myths from the various system to each other. Implying a connection between those topics without supporting sources is a synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Jack-A-Roe that in comparative religion articles we need sources demonstrating that someone else has previously addressed the subject in a comparative way, and that an article which makes cross-religion comparisons regarding subjects which others have only looked individually has WP:SYN issues. This article attempts a comparative look at how religions view creation from a theological, as distinct from an anthropological or "myth"-oriented) perspective. It attempts to inquire into what light creation accounts shed on theology as distinct from what light they shed on the people who believe them or on the accounts' literary structure or properties. Such topic is clearly distinctly different from Creation myth and Creationism, etc., as well as articles limited to specific religions such as Creation according to Genesis. An eminently worthy and distinct subject, and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been researched before. Nonetheless, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject has been. We need sources citing to studies or monographs, from either theologians or academic scholars, that have actually attempted to compare various creation accounts in order to gain theological insights, in order to avoid WP:SYN issues. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by creation myth, this is virtually a POV fork. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd be inclined to disagree. If adequately sourced I see no WP:POVFORK problem. One can take the perspective that theology and mythology are just points of view about the same thing, but there are enough universities that have distinct Religion (or Theology) and Folklore departments, for example, that there are a lot of reliable sources who regard them as different disciplines. We don't, for example, consider Quantum chemistry a POV fork of Quantum physics, or Industrial Psychology a POV fork of Economics or Manufacturing. When different disciplines study something and develop different literatures so that there is a body of reliable sources that treat them differently, separate articles are legitimate. Mythology and Theology are similarly treated as separate disciplines by numerous reliable sources. Both Art and Optometry deal with people's vision. One attempts to explore what people's vision says about the world, the other what it says about people's eyes. One is not a POV fork of the other. Same here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the sections regarding Hinduism in the 2 articles, they aren't written in a fundamentally different way. What is different however is the creation theology article gives undue weight to the Abrahamic tradition, compared to other traditions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.