Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion in Israel

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 mixed bag. Delete Religious coercion in Israel without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to a properly sourced section at the broader article. Keep the main Religious coercion article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious coercion in Israel

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

I'm also nominating Religious coercion. Both articles seem to be written from a non-neutral point of view. It's true that some laws in some nations (not just Israel) are written and enforced for religious reasons. However we would not have an article on highway speed limits titled "Traffic safety coercion," or even one titled "Economic stimulus coercion." Borock (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC) *Delete both as original synthesis. There are also serious problems with the neutrality of both articles, and reliable sources are not referenced in either. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)this is a sock of a banned user Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – perhaps a redirect to Forced conversion? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork of Religious relations in Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, unsourced, massive WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. Those could be solved by editing, but a) notability is not established in the first place, and b) cleaning up the articles' problems would amount to rewriting them entirely. Huon (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are other articles which could incorporate some of this material (if attributed to sources), but not here and especially not under this PoV title. • Astynax ^talk 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SYN, OR, NPOV. I was going to leave a comment but allow me to be more decisive. Marokwitz, you're funny because this article predates your article, which I think is also a valid candidate for AfD. If this subject was a quantifiable issue, it would be valid but it is merely a collection of isolated historical events which have in common only that they were media campaigns or political controversies. At least the HE WP has the 'balanced' religious coercion and secular coercion articles. --Shuki (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commentnote that Religious coercion was kept at AfD under a month ago. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD tag at the top of the Religious coercion article is leading to this AfD page. Please fix the tag. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator said, he nominated Religious coercion as well, for the same reasons. This is the discussion for both; the tag is correct. Huon (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Religious coercion is a notable topic which has been the subject of substantial works such as St. Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion. It has occurred in a variety of contexts and modern Israel is a notable example. For an example of a source discussing this particular case, see Law, politics, and morality in Judaism which states that "The most controversial issue in Israel today is religious coercion.". It will, of course, be difficult to present a controversial topic in a NPOV style but it is our editing policy to improve such notable topics rather than deleting them. And it is also our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If religious coercion is the most controversial issue in Israel today, that can be covered in the Religious relations in Israel, there is no need of a fork. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a deletion issue. The source demonstrates that religious coercion is a phrase commonly used used to describe the issue. It should therefore be a blue link not a red link. How we present the issue among our mix of articles is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a common phrase is not enough to establish notability. See textbook example. aprock (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a common phrase; it forms a significant part of the title of scholarly works such as Religious freedom and religious coercion in the state of Israel and Religious Coercion in Israel. There was a political party in Israel called the League to Prevent Religious Coercion in Israel. This is clearly not an arbitrary phrase. Warden (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Religious coercion, Delete Religious coercion in Israel The Religious coercion article should be kept per the same rationale I gave in the first AfD. The Religious coercion in Israel article is a POV fork of Religious relations in Israel, so delete it and merge anything useful into the later. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merger and deletion are mutually exclusive - please see WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Religious coercion and Religious coercion in Israel - Religious coercion and specifically Religious coercion in Israel are both notable topics which in my opinion should not be censored from the English Wikipedia. This is a widely covered topic within the Israeli society (anyone whom is familiar with the Israeli society could confirm this claim), which has extensively appeared in academic research as well as in the Israeli media. Just the existence of the parallel expanded and well-sourced article in the Hebrew Wikipedia should indicate by itself that this is not a fabricated topic but actually a very notable topic within the Israeli society. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both*: Religious coercion was unsourced original research from the beginning. Even after the first AfD that article still has no sources which discuss religious coercion, let alone a source which establishes notability. Based on reviewing Religious coercion in Israel, it is a fork of Religious relations in Israel. Any content not in the relations article should be merged, and both coercion articles deleted. aprock (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both The AFD for Religious coercion ended in keep on 24 January 2012. Honestly now, what could've possibly changed? Ample coverage was found about this. And why are two totally different articles having their AFD together? Both get coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is obviously notable, whatever one's views on the issue may be: [1][2][3][4] etc. That being said, it is a very bad idea to have unsourced articles on contentious religious/political topics. I'd be more than willing to vote Keep if someone went and sourced this, but if this is deleted, it should be without prejudice to the recreation of a sourced version. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~We already have a sourced article on the same topic at Religious relations in Israel. This is a POV fork. He to Hecuba (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Religious relations in Israel was created about 7 weeks ago while the article in question was created nearly a year ago. Religious coercion seems a much more precise phrase than religious relations which seems too vague and ill-defined for a controversial topic. If there has been any forking, then the answer is merger, not deletion. And the older, more precise title would be the merge target. Warden (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how one would merge a general topic (relations) into a specific topic (coercion). aprock (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might merge everything into Religion in Israel — presumably that's where all this stuff was before these new articles were created. But none of this shuffling the content around between titles would require deletion. Our editing policy is to avoid unnecessary deletion. Warden (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - It seems to me that Religious relations in Israel is a bit broader topic than Religious coercion in Israel, so this certainly could be included in the broader article. I could see justifying a spun out article on coercion, but it would have to be sourced and NPOV, of course. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Religious coercion in Israel as a clear POV fork of Religious relations in Israel. Keep Religious coercion per previous AfD debate. --PiMaster3 ^talk 06:40, 17 February 2012 (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.