Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptural reasoning

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptural reasoning[edit]

The term "scriptural reasoning" gets around 8,000 Google hits, many of which are not actually about this topic but simply occurrences of "scriptural" and "reasoning" together. The subject exists, it was promulgated in 1995 by the Society for Scriptural reasoning, but the article itself cites no real sources independent of that society, and is heavily WP:OWNed by user:scripturalreaosning, who claims that his organisaiton are sole owners of the name "Scriptural Reasoning". The article itself is an atrocious mess, as you'd expect given the WP:COI / WP:SPA issues (virtually every edit is a conflicted SPA or a Wikipedian trying to clean up after them and being resisted) combined with a religious topic, that is not really a surprise. It also reads as a mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO, with a liberal sprinkling of promotion over the top. I have no idea whether this can actually be rendered down to a decent article, but this certainly is not one, it looks like a job for Wikipedia:Delete the junk to me. The edit warring of the WP:SPA is enough of a problem even without his taking it off-wiki (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/statement.pdf). Whether this is redeemable with a rewrite and topic-ban for user:Scripturalreasoning or not, I can't really tell, because the user has polluted the article and the talk page to such an extent as to make it virtually impossible to view the article in a context separate from his tendentiousness and disruption. One editor on ANI described it as "very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box)" - that sums it up perfectly. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment who claims that his organisaiton are sole owners of the name "Scriptural Reasoning"

That bit's not accurate; they're not claiming to own the term, just saying no-one can (a kind of Zen assertion of ownership). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete into a doorknob. I searched for refs myself (as well as those found on the page). "significant third party references" is the phrase; the references found are divided into 1) things that mention it in passing (not significant) 2) statements by involved organisations (not third party) and 3) things that mention it when discussing something else (not a valid reference). It is filled with WP:OR and (although they don't matter) the intentions of the editor in question call the validity of this into doubt all on its own (normally if something is "important" per wiki-guidelines it will be important enough for someone not associtated with the thing in question to write an article). At some point this may become a widely used term/process, and at that point we can have an article on it, a neutral, well-referenced article edited by independent and neutral people. But this is not that point and this is definitely not that article. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think it'd be redeemable if a few rigorous and fresh editors could get to it with the battleground aspects removed. JzG, presumably that Google was without quotes? With quotes, it gets 8900 hits, with 450+ Google Books hits of which the majority refer specifically to it as a theological approach (many also give enough preview access to consult as sources).
More or less as JzG says, it does have an insider-written flavour, with a lot of how-to exposition that rather goes beyond what the cited sources say. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is heavily WP:OWNed by user:scripturalreaosning, who claims that his organisaiton are sole owners of the name "Scriptural Reasoning" -- where did I say that anywhere? No. I think this an mistaken identity on this one - you'll find it's the opposite (I am not associated with the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which does claim a monopoly on Scriptural Reasoning - and it is the other usersThelongview Mahigton Laysha101 who are linked to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning). On the contrary, the whole point is that "Scriptural Reasoning" is NOT owned by anyone, and there should be Due Weight with respect to different SR groups, but there have been other editors who have made assertions about it being "invented and developed" by a single group -- the Society for Scriptural Reasoning - only. Any reference to other groups or traditions in SR has been deleted, all headings, references, etc to other groups have repeatedly been deleted. And a monopoly on use of the name claimed for this one organisation "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" only. Look at the edit history and the deleted sections.

The subject exists, it was promulgated in 1995 by the Society for Scriptural reasoning, but the article itself cites no real sources independent of that society. Agreed entirely. This is in part due to editing deletions by other editors who are members or employed by the groups connected to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning"

with a liberal sprinkling of promotion over the top - Agreed entirely. My critique has been exactly that this article is being used as a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning, exaggerated claims about its uniqueness and importance, and suppression of problems in the practice. SR is a minority activity and not especially innovative -- others have been doing virtually the same stuff for years under other names.

is enough of a problem even without his taking it off-wiki - No. I did not take it off-Wiki. Colleagues received a phone call from the lead person of a national interfaith body complaining about the editing of the Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning article -- the two organisations the Cambridge Inter Faith Programme and St Ethelburga's who are part of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning network are affiliate bodies of the organisation which rang and made the complaint. That is how it went off-wiki.

"very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way - Agreed entirely. The early sections on "Method" and "Key Features" are just that, and I didn't write them but written by other users connected to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. I added the POV marker to that latter section, because the section appears to be promotional.

Hope that clarifies. The article in my view has been promotion material for the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, claiming a monopoly or majority sharehold on the practice for one organisation, and exaggerating its importance relative to near identical types of work that hs been done by others for years.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not take it off-Wiki.

What may have happened previously is unclear, but anyone can read at Talk:Scriptural Reasoning#Scriptural Reasoning Society Trustees that you were ... proactive in recent communications with them:

I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing ... I have told the Trustees ... I have therefore proposed to the Trustees ... etc

This is still on the table at WP:COIN, and in the light of what looks a major COI, please could you follow WP:COI guidelines and not use this AFD as a venue for further soapboxing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Yes, the page needs drastic cleaning, but that's never rationale to delete, it's rationale to improve. I am finding a number of good sources, with minimal effort. I am finding sources, like: [1], [2], and [3] that are written specifically about this topic. There are countless sources that mention it in broader contexts too. Cazort (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cazort the articles turned up by your search by David Ford and Peter Ochs are from founders of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". While there is prolific material published by this same group, I think the point being made above is the absence of much third party analysis other than from this small group, other than promotional news interviews, etc. If you scan the reference list of Scriptural Reasoning there is a superabundance of articles by the same group of authors. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point proven. Moving on.... Guy (Help!) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article sucks, but we have at least one book on the subject by a major scholar in Biblical hermeneutics published by a major academic publisher - David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006) that alone means an article is possible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by the creator of this article, sources which are not third party do not count. The book you just described, as noted by the creator, is obviously affiliated with the subject matter, and therefore does not count as a source, or grounds for notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, as I mentioned above, there are plenty of books findable not by David Ford. In addition, Ford's books are real books published by academic presses like Oxford University Press, not Lulu-published stuff to be dismissed as sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete No unaffiliated sources provided means no notability.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullshit. A number of notable scholars start using a term, and stating what they mean by it. They are published in mainstream academic series, which publish only serious scholarship. There is absolutely no reason for us not to record that these people are using the term, and what they define it to mean. All of that can be done neutrally and verifiably. If we don't have any critical assessment, then the article need not give any assessment, it can stick to self description of the methodology. Seriously, anyone arguing otherwise knows nothing about hermeneutics as a discipline. There is absolutely no basis in policy to delete this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on NPOV. this is essentially a pawn in dispute between two groups about which if either of them own the term. This is settled by editing by some neutral people, not by deleting. If after a good effort by unaffiliated editors it is concluded to be impossible to find actual sources, that's another matter--but the present contentious state of the article does not mean we should delete it to save the trouble. DGG (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A Google News search appears to support the article's merits: [4]. This type of article would benefit from a rewrite. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EagleFan (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goggle Books and above sources and send to WP:CLEANUP to address POV and COI. Since the article can be corrected to meet standards, it should be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all original research and no reliable sources the discuss the original research as stitched into this article? Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Original research with no sources. --Sloane (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's and Ironholds' well-reasoned analysis of the available non-sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, synthesis of poor sources at best. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (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.