Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianized myths and imagery

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianized myths and imagery

Delete Original research. Is covered in better detail on other wikipedia articles without the original research and PoV twist Dominick ^(TALK) 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This is an interesting case because at least part of this article is sourced from what I can see, though it could be seen as redundant with individual articles on saints and iconography, but I can see the benefit of having some of this information centralized so one doesn't have to go around and find individual articles; it's hard to know there is any sort of historical controversy about Saint Veronica, Brigid of Kildare, or others since there doesn't appear to be a category for this. What part are you asserting is original research and POV Dominick? Preferablly I'd like to see this dealt with as a content issue where we edit or source anything that is not sourced or that promotes POV. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see this as a good candidate for the nuclear option.--Isotope23 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the articles on individual saints. Original publication of research for a specific PoV in one place is not what Wikipedia is for. The lead of this article and the assumption that these people are mythical paints the article into a PoV box. I am not of the opinion that AfD is nuclear. Just good sense pruning. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually, it looks like this is an acceptable WP:FORK from Christianisation due to the parent article size. I still don't see what you are asserting is OR... just becuase this doesn't agree with the articles on the individual saints doesn't mean it is OR; most of the assertions are not OR but are in fact based on externally written sources. The article just needs to be better sourced. As for PoV, there is nothing PoV about the lead in of this article. It states that "The historicity of several saints has often been treated skeptically by most academics..." and this is a true statement... there are many academics who question the historicity of Christian figures. Whether you agree with the contention or not doesn't change the fact that there is a significant body of work out there that explores the connection between mythological figures and traditional Christian figures. As long as the article doesn't "pick sides", IMO this is fine. I don't think this is painted into a POV box (and POV isn't a deletion reason anyway)... If there are NPOV concerns with the title than a Move is in order and should be discussed. If there is wording that is POV, then edits should be made. With a move, some editing, and some better sourcing, this could be a decent article.--Isotope23 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Part original research . part fact. --Ageo020 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Claims of this type have certainly been widely made. Much better sourcing is needed. If I recall correctly, about 25 years ago the Roman Catholic church deemphasized (or something stronger) a batch of saints whose historicity couldn't be adequately proven. Not that this behaviour was unique to Christianity - almost everywhere the Romans went they merged local dieties with the Roman pantheon. The article needs better sourcing and, if anyone can find a reliable source balancing these claims that way, or some other way, then it should go in also. GRBerry 02:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and provide sources. This is one of the sections that have been divided off Christianization, I think. It is certainly a familiar subject: everyone has heard of Jean Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, even if they haven't actually read it (it's in paperback). No reason to suppress this material as "original research" . Even commonplaces and cliché seem original when one first comes in perfect innocence to a subject. --Wetman 07:37, 2 September 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.