Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious attitudes to racism

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. --Core desat 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious attitudes to racism[edit]

This article is horrible. Wikipedia does not need an article about how religion is against racism. This article has several POV issues; it is bias for some religions ang bias against others. Sefringle^Talk 06:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I object to the use of words like "horible", I don't see the need for this article. If racism is a significant subject with regards to a particular religion, I think its discussion is better served in that religion's article. Calgary 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge in more focussed articles. As it is, it is a transversal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Goochelaar 09:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sefringle. -- Jeff3000 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Calgary 69.116.62.33 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calgary. Dominictimms 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article attempts to cover racism within all world religions, which to too broad a scope to cover in a single article. The topic is best covered in each individual religion's article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a merge. This is just a hodgepodge of information and is largely a synthesis of information and thus a form of original research. Any of the keepable material is already better covered in other articles, such as articles about individual religions. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay article with OR and POV problems. Artw 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm aware that at one time, the Bible was relied upon by some interpreters to justify discrimination against the descendants of Ham, descendants of Ishmael, descendants of Shem, etc., and it's noteworthy that someone has found the specific verses relied upon. My only question is whether other religions were citing passages in support of discrimination, or whether someone has simply seen a quote that "seems" racist. The article suggests that others have cited these, I don't know. Mandsford 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this should be kept because what ...? Have you really addressed the above concerns with the article?--Sefringle^Talk 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? This is going to get deleted anyway... Mandsford 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is a discussion, not a vote. If you want the article kept, you need to try to convince us that we are wrong in wanting to delete this article.--Sefringle^Talk 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Oh, of course. I'll do that after I leave some milk and cookies for Santa. Mandsford 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH - Taking examples of racism from religions and putting them all under this broad topic Corpx 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Well-sourced, can be improved. Bearian 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge that which is reliably sourced with racism.Bless sins 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with racism, but do not delete.Bless sins 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - religiocruft.Baka man 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important issue, and the subject itself is not inherently POV. To deal with POV content by deleting the article rather than editing it is not the way to go. JASpencer 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sefringle, Bakasuprman. -- Karl Meier 14:15, 26 August 2007 (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.