Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiosity

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religiosity[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This blatant WP:SYNTH. The lead is a WP:DICTDEF, while the statistics scattered throughout the article do not have any clear or meaningful connection and could easily be fit anywhere else on Wikipedia. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it is true the article needs serious work that is not a basis for deletion and the topic of religiosity, its characteristics/definitions is notable. EvilxFish (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My original concerns had stemmed from the assumption that "religiosity" was too vague a topic to warrant an encyclopedia page. However, I suppose it could work if done right. I'm thinking about closing this. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a good article in its current state but I don't see that there's much scope to contest that the subject is notable (the current references listed are sufficient to establish that). Hmee2 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources are there already on the topic. I think that this article can improve but it does show what factors play a role when scholars gauge that people are religious or not. Plus it is used in things like psychology [1].Ramos1990 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "religion". It may be regarded as a WP:CFORK; Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. "Religiosity" is a substantivisation of "religious", which in turn is an adjective meaning one who believes/belongs/practises a "religion"; therefore the concept can find a place within the article about "religion". The corresponding articles in other languages are probably translations of the English one.--Æo (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet GNG as a stand alone topic. Serratra (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely needs a rewrite but this is notable as the sociological study of religious adherence and religious disposition. A merge to religion would not be appropriate, since religion is a very broad article about the phenomenon of religion as a whole; this is is much more specifically about studying the human tendency towards religious beliefs/practices. If you want to call it a WP:CFORK then it is a legitimate one, and there is nothing wrong with a massive topic like religion (which is the subject of an entire academic discipline) having subsidiary articles about specific approaches to its study. On the question of notability, there are clearly sufficient sources to show that this meets the WP:GNG; plenty in the article, and the first page of Google Scholar results has the following: [2], [3], [4], [5]; there will almost certainly be more. WJ94 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Agree with everything WJ94 has said. But yes, the article does need some work. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 09:17, 26 January 2023 (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.