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. No prejudice to a redirect. If anyone wants, I can restore the content to a draft (let me know on my talk), but it definitely shouldn't go back in mainspace as-is. ansh666 07:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal religion[edit]

Universal religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Complete synthesis article, with absolutely no in-depth coverage of the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We've already had this discussion with Universalizing religion. I don't see why the previous AfD and RFC at Talk:Universalizing religion#Merge to Cornelis Tiele. I'm especially concerned that User:Realphi is continuing the squander the second chance given by User:Dlohcierekim by persisting in the same tendentious editing that was a part of the behavior that resulting in previous blocks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is surely an important subject for Religious Studies students. Vorbee (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per WP:POVFORK. Among issues, atheism is listed as a religion with unsubstantiated claims like "affirms free will". Reality is more complex than that, although it's out of the scope of this page. —PaleoNeonate – 07:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cornelis Tiele#Universal religions per WP:POVFORK. Warn user (again?) regarding edit warring. Polyamorph (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:POVFORK and the original nomination WP:SYNTH. As mentioned above this is an attempt by a single author to circumvent consensus giving undue weigh to a confused and minor term.PRehse (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, both this article as well as the proposed redirect at Cornelis Tiele#Universal religions contain mostly original research. I have checked a few sources in both articles, and none of them even mention the term universal or universalizing religion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no shortage of ones that do. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody look at that range of titles... What? It's in the 5 Steps to a 5 AP series?!? I don't know why that shocks me so much. —Geekdiva (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 1. Important subject 2. There is an article for ethnic religion, its opposite and universalism, its rival 3. Article too big compared to size of Cornelis Tiele page. Realphi (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks all a bit forky to me, and maybe some OR thrown in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is largely about the theory of one scholar. If kept it should be renamed to Universalizing religion, which is a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This basic work suggests it has gone well beyond that by now. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, that's a Routledge book! I ~love~ that publisher! Ahem, the first result in Johnbod's search given way above is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geography - Page 22 "Geographers classify religions into two primary types: A universalizing religion is open to all human beings and attempts to spread its faith ... An ethnic religion generally encompasses specific groups of people in a particular location on earth. [And then lists various well-known religions and contrasts and compares them with these terms]." —Geekdiva (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but fully rewrite per Johnbod's arguments and sources. Currently, definitely OR, but subject appears to be a notable theoretical framework. Might have to be stubbed for the time being.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep or Redo-ify with conditions if that's a thing – Following up on my comment just above, the current and historical use of the title & topic term should be what this article should be built on, even if the rest of the current text gets slashed away at some point like soon. Going by that, the term AND its stated opposite are used in a range of books (thx J above | oh wait I mean the earthly J | oh wait) in a list starting with The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geography and including the previously-J'wikilinked The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (later pls somebody n.b. for adding somewhere: the contrasting term being ethnic OR cultural religion in the latter ref). A quick glance seems to show increasing use since the mid-90s and lots of use near the intersection of Religion Way and Geography Circle.

If I were restructuring it (or wanted to give conditions), I'd focus on getting a range (comparative religion, geography, history of religion...dunno, maybe history of atheism but only if it follows the rest of this sentence) of references that *actually mention exactly "by name"* the title term plus any other topic terms that are bolded in the intro; let the refs do the synthesizing. Then I'd comment out or remove any existing refs that seem or are superfluous. I'd continue by describing the current, most wide-spread use(s) first, then give a historical overview, and lastly see what leftover parts don't fit anymore, should be/are already covered else-article, or make me realize there should be another (sub)section. After that, I'd redo the intro.

FWIW,

1. I mentally went from an obvious Delete to a cranky Keep and back and forth again with no time spent in the middle.
2. I only stumbled upon this discussion by extreme chance.
3. I only participated in this discussion to this extent because I saw Johnbod's points and read what J was pointing at (the initial initial letter being my preferred wikipronoun).
4. Finally and (at the last moment) remembering to discuss the behavior and not the person because the behavior might could change, I really, really, rillyrilly don't like some edit summary stuff in the page's history that pushes my personal Presbyterian buttons, SO you see I had to DRAG myself to a well-considered, why-am-I-here, independent-of-any-other-page Strong Keep. Sorry for the data dump, but I had to do what I could all at once and ~in full personality~ because I was already overdoing it and I won't be able to be back. Ps. OMG edit conflict. User talk:Farang Rak Tham, I think I got everything of yours in, but I am typing a lot and am tired to the inverse degree. And I agree. —Geekdiva (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge and rewrite (and thanks to those who took the trouble to follow my links above!). It seems certainly a widely-discussed concept, probably too much so to tie to Tiele, who died over a century ago. I think the lead pretty much as it is could be referenced; I'm dubious about the "characteristics" section, but maybe that and the table can be. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. The subject is notable, as User:Johnbod points out but the current article reads as a personal essay with references tagged on. A fresh article on the subject could be crafted along the lines of Ethnic religion explaining the term, usage, common category features and its (fuzzy) boundaries rather than be a platform for comparing universal religions as in the table included in the current article, which is pure synthesis. Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Wikipedia seems infested, of late, with papers pretending to be articles. The practice violates a host of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:OR, and so on. Yet, such texts are the most difficult to exterminate because they impress editors with their sourcing and smooth language (they are papers, after all). I suggest we go at it with determination and disinfect the space. Takes about two seconds of WP:TNT. -The Gnome (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Too many uncited statements, make it seem like an essay WP:NOTESSAY. It either needs to be deleted or reduced to a stub, and restarted. Park3r (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2018 (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.