Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views on witchcraft

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 no consensus. That being said, it's a disgrace that this article is four years old without attracting actual references beyond the biblical. Folks arguing keep: the burden is on you to make this article worth keeping, or I suspect we'll be back here again soon. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views on witchcraft

Christian views on witchcraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - No sources but Bible verses, original research, unverifiable Frater Xyzzy 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — A page on Christian historical beliefs on witchcraft, along with the treatment of said accused witches, would be most interesting and encyclopedic. But I'm not clear that this is the right form. — RJH (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It needs to be sourced from secondary sources. Interpretation of Bible verses is quite the sticky wicket when it comes to factuality. Frater Xyzzy 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well written and an interesting read, keep and fix. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those standards do not constitute a good Wikipedia article if it's not verified and blatant OR. DoomsDay349 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Though you can interpret the Bible willy-nilly for all I care, if it's not been published by a notable source, then it's OR. DoomsDay349 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup and references, but this is a decent start to an interesting topic. The multiple Bible verse translations should go, but it's hard to see how the stuff about the Catholic Church's historic skepticism about witchcraft and the Santería hybrid is not encyclopedic. —Chowbok ☠ 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs substantial work, but it provides a place for this important topic, which I wouldn't want to see lumped into the Witchcraft article. A lengthy (and likely quite negative) interpretation of Witchcraft from Christian perspectives would detract from the neutrality of that article. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is, without doubt, scope for an encyclopaedic article on Christianity and witchcraft, but this is not it. We'd be better off forking from the Inquisition articles, and bringing that up to date, using the numerous published sources which do exist, rather than using this original research. Alternatively we could userfy it to let people have time to fix the souring and verifiability issues. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Sharkface217 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Since when has being interesting become a reason for keeping an article? There's a way to make article substantial. Xiner 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not only is it "interesting," it is historically verifiable, and significant--with contemporary impacts/consequences (seen in a number of court cases regarding witchcraft and the right to Freedom of Religion in the US Bill of Rights). There are literally hundreds of scholarly works on this topic published through university presses around the world... Not THAT is notability. This article is rough, and in need of some TLC, but the topic is most definitely worth an article.--MonkeyTimeBoy 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Very interesting article - I do agree the citation needs to be cleaned up but it is well written.
• Delete Horribly POV, borderline attack page --RoninBK_ETC 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This article lacks references, yes, but I'm sure on a topic like this sources can be found and added. That does not make it original research. Its just in serious need of cleanup. We are better off adding a cleanup tag to it asking contributors to add references and make it more balanced/NPOV. Nimrand 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is in definite need of additional sourcing and additional NPOV information from other perspectives but it is of itself encyclopedic.
• Keep Definitely needs proper sourcing, but that is VERY EASY to fix. Using webpages alone, there are literally thousands of Christian websites alone out there where "Christian views on Witchcraft" can be found and used as source material for this page. But I am suspicious that this whole argument is motivated by a desire to suppress, not by a desire for NPOV and proper sourcing.207.34.120.71 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Needs POV check and editing of some of the more sensationalist elements, but this is history. there are dozens of sources out there other than the KJV Bible. - WeniWidiWiki 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not an encyclopaedic topic. Canderra 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Badly done, but a valid topic. It just needs a rewrite. Totnesmartin

10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep and improve. The deletion of articles of this sort, and the continual proposals for their deletion, are to me a suggestion of possible pervasive NPOV. The only possible response to that is to keep them.DGG 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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.