Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis of faith (3rd nomination)

Crisis of faith

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Crisis of faith
• Articles for deletion/Crisis of faith (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Crisis of faith (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Crisis of faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has been nominated for deletion before. It is largely a WP:COATRACK composed of WP:OR that already is present in the criticism of religion article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. As per the nominator, this article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of disparate pieces of non-related material. The "Epidemic" section of the article, for example, discusses how the Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia was questioned by some Pentecostals. It makes no mention about how people of faith help educate the public about Ebola.[1] Regardless this section (like all the sections in the article) have NOTHING to do with a "crisis of faith". It's simply an WP:ATTACKPAGE against religion. desmay (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. This article was deleted in 2017. It was brought back without consensus. If any material was suggested, a redirect to Spiritual crisis or Crisis of absence of meaning seems more appropriate. I would argue what is the point of such an article in the first place? The Crisis article already addresses different types of crisis people face. It does look like a WP:COATRACK of these articles. People lose faith in stuff all the time (politics, family, friends, spouse, sports, the future, culture, etc) and at the same time they acquire faith in the same stuff too. The lead is not even sourced well in defining the topic article and the scope seem incredibly broad without any academic source. Some of the material seems more appropriate in depression or pessimism or nihilism. On top of that empirical studies show that many things in this article do not impact their faith in any consistent fashion. You can lose faith in "religion", but retain strong belief in God and vice versa. There are many layers to this. People lose faith in marriage but they still date extensively throughout their lives. People lose faith in government and do not vote, and yet they retain strong belief in political candidates. An easy one is God, in that belief in God is not impacted by tragedies [2]. People get over it and move on. on top of this, the focus of the article is too much on religion and ignores the disillusionment among the nonreligious with secularism, many of which can be found in List of converts to Christianity from nontheism. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep — the article's main points and overall structure come directly from academic sources, namely, Robert C Evans, Sydney Eisen, and Jennifer Michael Hecht. I find it odd to say the article is an attack on religion because it is quite clear that strengthened faith is a common outcome of a crisis of faith. It includes the examples of Job, Julia Wedgewood, Ellice Hopkins, Søren Kierkegaard, Richard Rubenstein, etc. Jno.skinner (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Jno.skinner, the article is in reasonably good shape overall and is largely well-referenced and not OR. The lead might need some cleanup to better summarize the article, and the section about Ebola could be removed (or improved with better references), but we don't need to delete the entire article to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM —siroχo 03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I included Ebola in Liberia in an effort to achieve WP:GLOBAL perspective by including something from Africa. I would gladly see it replaced with some other account from that continent. Ideas? Jno.skinner (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's certainly a reasonable thought. I have no specific ideas, sorry. However, if there are any academic articles to back up the NYT claims it would be a stronger sign to include it as an example. —siroχo 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that this is something of a WP:COATRACK, but looking at the other articles that are mentioned I do think that the approach of this one ("faith") differs from what there is in WP:Existential crisis (which seems to be the closest to this). That article is couched in somewhat psychological terms, sometimes even scientific, and this one is more humanistic. I think there is room for both. I *am* concerned that this article primarily seems to be the work of one editor, and that there have been some violations of deletion policy. I would suggest bringing in other editors to make sure the content is created in a cooperative way. I do think that the Accounts section needs revision because there are aspects that I do not think belong there. Lamona (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. I vote to delete. Substantial parts of the article veer off into a generic attack on religion. NishantXavier (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)