Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perversion of religion

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 Hoary notes, suspect content should not be merged. Sandstein 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perversion of religion[edit]

Orphaned article, previously prodded but contested by the author, which does little more than attempt to define a phrase (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Moreover, the article claims that the term was coined by Kant in Critique of Judgement, but the phrase doesn't appear in Critique of Judgement, at least not in this translation, and Google doesn't think it is associated with Kant. As a title for an article this would be inherently POV unless there's a well-defined philosophical concept with this name, which seems unlikely, so the potential for a good article here is rather low. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless author can support this with solid references; and even then, I'd say it belongs at best somewhere in an article on Kant or Kantian theory. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for a separate article on this one, certainly not given one without references supporting the claims offered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge as a section on Kant's views of religion in the main article on him, or the article on Critique of Judgment --with better sourcing to show the concept is generally accepted. I don't know enough to myself say how important this particular part of his thought is considered to be. DGG (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable expression. Borock (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Critique of Judgement, but delete the redirect. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is sourced to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. I don't have access to this online and I also don't have a copy of the book. I do however have a copy of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. This doesn't appear to mention the phrase, but it does go on at considerable length about the Critique of Judgement, which it points out is complex, subtle and perplexing. While I normally like to "AGF" and all the rest, I have little faith in summaries of material such as this by any but the most capable and scrupulous of editors. The particular editor who created this article has a short list of contributions conspicuous among which is the usurpation of an article on the physicist Ashesh Prosad Mitra to re-create an article on the apparently unrelated psychiatrist Ashok(a) (Jahnavi-) Prasad (most recently discussed here). Of itself this does not imply that this article is worthless, but it does imply to me that the article is more safely assumed to be worthless and should not be merged anywhere (or "transwikied" or otherwise recycled) unless its content can first be verified. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 13 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.