Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism

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. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian extremism

Article is entirely unreferenced and POV. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism , "The very definition of what is Extreme depends entirely on one's Point of View (POV). Thus, there's no way to have an article on Hindu or Christian Extremism without it being mostly, or entirely POV." ॐ Priyanath talk 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Request sources and relist later. But it does read as if it is original research. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This reads like an essay, and yes, it appears to be POV. Heimstern Läufer 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The principle certainly exists, but it's hard to really have anything concrete on it; those who declare it tend to have a POV issue, those who deny it likewise. There's very little middle ground with which to do any good research and find sources. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Watch i agree with farix, request sources, and if none appear then recatalog for deletion.
Delete per nom.Baka man 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete full of POV P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources would need to be added, and the POV eliminated; which would IMHO, be extremely difficult to do. The problem is that this does exist, documenting and putting it into a non POV article is what is needed - not as this stands as of now. SkierRMH 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely POV -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Priyanath.POV Garbage!Akanksha 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Duper Delete. Completely POV Wikipedia is NOT a blog. Buh-bye. MiracleMat 06:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do think that this topic deserves an article of its own, however, what is there presently is basically original research, and is extremely POV. It needs a complete rewrite. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have an opinion that all Extremism sites should be removed whether they are about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any other, because those extremist elements are not derived from the ‘Truth’ of those religions but from those of who were ‘Fanatic’ of those religions or misused those religions.

Jesus Christ never said anywhere to spread the God’s message in ruthless ways.

But the fanatic Emporors in the Old Europe, West Asia and rest of the world and their local rulers destroyed the most beautiful Pagan Temples in then Roman Empire everywhere in the Old Europe and West Asia. Islamic kings and Emperors were not second to others.

Even the Hindu society was and is divided by various caste systems. But if you carefully analyze there is mystery on many things of their originality. Whether they really represent the original Hinduism or the derivatives, which was blended with.

So it is not prudent to observe Extremism in Christianity, but wipe out those weeds of customs, which were introduced within the Christianity from the pre-historical times and the fanatics who misuse the Christianity.

Rajsingam 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lost^(talk) 07:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps an article on Religious extremism (currently redirecting to Extremism) can be written that examines the general phenomenon based on academic studies rather than newspaper clippings. Only such a scholarly article dealing with the sociological, psychological, political, historical and religious aspects could be sufficiently encyclopedic. Abecedare 08:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced POV essay/rant. Agree with Abecedare that a general article on religious extremism is needed though. Dragomiloff 11:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Islamist terrorism Afd. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say take out POV and keep just as we kept Islamist Terrorism... there are some notable groups among them no less dangerous than the islamists. Alf photoman 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The present article actually does not seem that POV, since it does not say that all or most Christians are extremists, and mainstream media in even predominantly Christian nations agree that there are extremists among Christians. History books are full of descriptions Christian extremism (religious persecution, religious wars, bombings of abortion clinics). Granted, extremism may seem very mainstream and in accordance with the requirements of the religion to the extremists themselves. The thing lacking in the article is SOURCES! All it cites is a website. It would not be much of an exercise to keep what is there and source it from mainstream media, or the present article could be deleted without prejudice so that a well sourced article could be created later. The POV viewpoint is to claim there is no Christian extremism in the world and never was. Edison 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. All religions can have extremist interpretations and its important to document it. I agree that there needs to be more sources added but the article shouldn't be scrapped. --Howrealisreal 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Edison; this is a valid and rather widely used concept and I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there, though they need to be cited properly. The article itself doesn't appear to be all that POV, though, as I've said, we need sources and in a 'controversial' article like this it's especially important to cite virtually everything in the article. --The Way 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a paragraph summary in Christian fundamentalism (or religious extremism if that article ever happens, I like the idea of that). I have no objection with "Christian extremism" being discussed on Wikipedia - I just don't think there's enough sourced material in this article to justify its independent status. Islamist terrorism, on the other hand, does have enough content and sources to stand alone. Similarly, if more sourced examples of Christian extremism can be found, I wouldn't mind it having its own article. Quack 688 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now - This seems a problem with WP:V and WP:NOTABLE and should go through the text before relisting. JASpencer 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite for NPOV and add sources. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's likely that Islamic extremism is going to be deleted which would make it difficult to justify keeping this as a separate article. A new Religious extremism article (rather than the redirect that now exists) would be better for NPOV so as not to single out one religion. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to either Christian identity or Christian_terrorism, Delete POV against Fundamentalists. Peaceful mainstream fundamentalists do not deserve to be lumped in with Abortion Clinic bombers, although the Fringe Fundamentalists who are actively working towards Armegeddon to hasten the return of Jesus really do deserve their own article, IMHO. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any important discussion could take place in a general 'religious extremism article. We can't have 'X' and then 'X extremism' articles for everything out thereWestmoreville 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term "extremism" is a weasel word largely discredited in contemporary scholarship. A general article on Religion and violence should replace the several highly POV pages in this dubious set.--Cberlet 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is far too POV. Hello32020 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written and POV beyond all repair. Pavel Vozenilek 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Christian extremist terrorism - no need to have both articles, and the latter seems more encyclopedic as written. -- Kesh 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. --Wizardman 04:22, 4 January 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.