Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in religion

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (14 delete, 4 keep). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in religion

The article is innately unable to achieve a neutral point of view. The concept of "unsolved problems" in religion is without basis, and may well be a contradiction in terms. Alterego 04:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV, original research, unverifiable. Bleah. -EDM 04:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rant/personal essay. Editor can surely edit the existing religion articles if they don't cover these points (I highly suspect they do). Dcarrano 05:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 07:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm no fan of religion, but this article is pretty hopeless. Kairos 09:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per EDM --Malathion 09:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am totally in favour of using pages like Religion, Atheist and Arguments For/Against the Existence of God to discuss religion and its demerits. Wikipedia should have them. However, this is a poor page, which would have likely slipped through the POV net. Thansk for catching it now. Some of the content is undoubedly relevant (and I dont think it is original research, more original rant), but should not be here. Batmanand 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly proper and encyclopaedic topic jamesgibbon 16:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Smite — This topic would take an immensely massive, heavy tome to address, and even then it would purely PoV of the author. — RJH 18:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 19:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per EDM. - Mustafaa 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No explanation need be given. --AI 02:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. Xoloz 15:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This will never be NPOV. The very concept is POV. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Preaky 04:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Better to modify the approach than to remove the entry. Article deficiencies aside, not an inherently POV flawed topic. Colby 10:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Critiques of religion are better placed in other articles. Quale 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These are not problems in the traditional sense of a puzzle to be resolved. Some of these entries reflect an inevitable conflict between belief systems. As such, they are either unsolvable, easily solved (in the mind of a religion's adherents), or an inate attribute of religion itself. (The subject matter is worth covering however, but not in this context.) --EMS | Talk 19:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are topics that are encyclopaedic but are also inherently view-based. NPOV is achieved by (1) a one-liner saying that this topic has an inherent POV of which the reader must be aware, (2) a link to a contrary POV, (3) someone expanding the topic by stating "unsolved problems" from various religions, etc. I agree with Colby (above) that the flaws are recoverable. Peter Ellis 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Every time I reread this article it gets worse. The title is completely misleading, as it suggests that the article is going to contain a discussion of actual problems that are soluble, or at least open to intricate philosophical debate, with reference to a particular set of faith assumptions (like, for example, the problem of evil). That's not at all what this article is. It would more appropriately be titled Flaws with religious belief or Reasons that religion is incompatible with society's now fully evolved rationality-based belief system—and to state that is to realize that the topic is inherently POV and therefore unencyclopedic. I think Colby and Peter Ellis are overly optimistic in their assessment of the salvageability of this article.

Oh, and what's with the "topics for further discussion" at the end? When did this become Wikitextbook?

Je dirais même plus: Bleah. -EDM 04:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.