Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of peace

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. then redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes. MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of peace

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A badly conceived FORK, supposedly intended to describe the pacifistic, peaceful nature of world religions, it ended as a (controversial) collection of quotes on a meme, with a positive and negative things people have said about Islam in various media outlets or its comment sections, some of which shouldn't even be used on our project. The total absence of proper academic sources gives us little hope of articles development in its current direction. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Ostensibly, there's no obvious unifying theme here. There's a collection of references to various uses of the phrase "religion of peace", but there's nothing to tie them all together. However, the phrase "religion of peace" is these days widely used as a reference to Islam, and is generally used sarcastically by right-wing commentators. The reference to Coulter's use of the term in the article is typical. It's hard to see how any use of "religion of peace" can ever be NPOV, and it's not obvious to me that any of the references are actually to sources that are analysing the phrase rather than engaging in biased posturing. This article strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to embed sloganising in Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islam There is only one context in which this phrase is ever used, and that is when it is used sarcastically to refer to Islam. Non-neutral redirects are explicitly permitted, so there is no real reason not to turn this into a redirect when it is probably a likely search term. Mlb96 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes as a better target. Mlb96 (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am still around, so I will say just that I find this to be reasonable suggestion, thanx.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes per Mlb96. That's a lot better than using this article title for a collection of pro- and anti-Islam quotes, which is what it currently amounts to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that several major religions have both peaceful and violent teachings, traditions, or histories, and that includes Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to name a few. Hence it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to select any one of them and designate it as the "Religion of peace". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. More the sort of actual topic the phrase suggests to people not already in on the meme/joke/secret/whatever. As is, a collection of uses and near-uses is more suited to a dictionary. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect. The suggested target is excellent; thank you, Mlb96. But delete first, per WP:Neutrality and WP:Reliable sources, since the article shows neither. Some background: this AfD is the result of a recent discussion on the article’s talk page about the article’s subject matter and focus. The talk page shows similar discussions challenging the neutrality and content of the article, going back more than four years. The article in its current state is not about the concept of being a “religion of peace”, which is undefined. The actual article is entirely about Islam and whether it is or is not a "religion of peace." The article text consists of two dozen random quotes saying either that it is or that it isn’t. We ultimately reached consensus that the article is inherently POV and should not be included in this encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my first comment I said that Mlb96 suggestion to redirect is good, because term probably is very common search query, but I also assumed deletion is, for reasons MelanieN explained (thanks, MN!), implied.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my buzzword! We can share, though, no copyright claimed, reserved or permitted. I also see no problem with deleting the old target first, if fresh starts are historically cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islam. May be if it was put together more coherently, but at the moment its just a list of references, not really an article. I think this could also be a section on the Islam article, as the phrase is specifically associated with it (in negative and positive ways) rather than other religions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have to agree with Metropolitan90, and reiterate my support for Mlb96's proposal (redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes) amended by MelanieN (delete & redirect).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (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.