Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual direction

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 keep. If the discussion wasn't already leaning to keep, per the sources provided by Northamerica1000, it clearly is now. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual direction

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

Original delete proposal Article completely devoid of references to reliable sources, mainly describing beliefs (even of other religions) from a specific Christian standpoint - see references (so article violates NPOV); recently a niche Muslim sect added promotional references to a publication by their preacher. A single main contributor. I am doubtful whether the subject "spiritual direction" should at all form a separate article when Spirituality article is there and is, frankly, quite exhausting. Proposed deletion, because I can't see what could be merged into spirituality and Christianity without duplication. kashmiri ^TALK 13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unnotable made up crap pushing more mushy headed backwardness and religion, already a blight over most of the Earth. Lycurgus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The Christianity Today (a respected source in Christian circles) article suggests that this is a notable topic as a recent trend. However the article attempts to make it about something much greater, involving all of Christian (and seemingly Muslim and Jewish) history. Delete that per WP:OR but with more sources an article on the more limited modern topic might be possible.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic makes eminent sense for an article and this is a pretty good start. Note that the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia had an article on the subject (linked from the article) and there's one in the new 2003 Catholic Encylclopedia from Gale, a standard academic work[1]. Deleting this article because we have the article on Spirituality is like saying we should delete all the articles in Category:Education_by_subject because we have the corresponding subject articles or delete Psychotherapy because we have Psychology.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems to be not true at all that there is "A single main contributor" (presumably User:Ekabhishek) I see significant work by User:Pixarh, the article was created way back in 2006 by User:Marax, there was an excellent expansion by User:Mouswj, and an initial expansion into Judaism by User:Rbarenblat, which was subsequently added to by someone else. Etc. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: there are parallel articles in four other wikipedias: Čeština, Italiano, Nederlands, and Polski, further suggesting this is not a borderline topic.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Really?! Spiritual Direction has remained specific practice in Christian monasticism for centuries, all monasteries have a spiritual director which redirects to this page, and links to important Christianity pages here. No where a fringe topic. Can be build upon further, clearly no NPOV issue, as the world has caught on with the term and new age spirituality as well.--Ekabhishek^talk 07:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a basic belief related to different genres of belief which exist under the umbrella spirituality. Not associated to one single Christian belief or Muslim sect. Infact, different beliefs have been covered within the same article. I dont see why an editor who has not contributed at all find it "exhausting". Pixarh (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Entire books are devoted to the topic: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. [11], [12], [13], [14] (there's more). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 December 2015 (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.