Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious scientists

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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious scientists

little more than a definition. Relies upon a single source. Recommendation to copy to wiktionary contested. RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ETA that we have Relationship between religion and science. The idea that "religious scientists" is an encyclopedic concept is a silly one. john k (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that this won't go past a definition. I'm assuming that we have a religion and science article to which the single source could be merged. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it can eventually accommodate renowned people from the field and expand on their work. Imperatore (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you improve the article to demonstrate the kind of "renowned people" you are referring to?--RadioFan (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Ill-defined, feels like POV-pushing (certainly content-forking).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come to think of it, marrying religion with science, isn't that an oxymoron somehow? I might just change end up changing my opinion to delete. Imperatore (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spiritual firemen, Deistic bureaucrats and Pious truck drivers. Useless definition, non-encyclopedic classification. See Relationship between religion and science#The attitudes of scientists towards religion. — Rankiri (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a dicdef and the sort of pov-magnet that would attract pushers from either side of the argument without doing much to improve this encyclopedia. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - should we have non-religious scientists too? I removed a transwiki tag, because this is even less a dictionary entry than it is an encyclopedic entry. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition offered isn't even correct. Being "religious" and believing that god exists are wildly different things. Hairhorn (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Relationship between religion and science. While this is a valid AfD, as it is currently unsourced and has little or no content, I strongly disagree with the comments which seem to dismiss the idea that religious scientists exist. They do. See Galileo, Issac Newton, etc, and studies such as here and here. Such an article could exist if properly sourced and its notability substantiated; it's certainly not any more POV than List of atheists (science and technology). If in the future a List of religious scientists or a List of scientists who believe in God crops up, it may have to redirect there. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I don't see any comments suggesting that religious scientists don't exist, I'd be fine with the redirect that you suggested, as it is a plausible search term. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (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.