Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian persecution complex (2nd nomination)


 * 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. We've had plenty of input here over two weeks, with a fairly even split of opinion between deleting and keeping. Michig (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Christian persecution complex
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As discussed on article's talk page at Talk:Christian persecution complex, there is a clear lack of availability of reliable sources which would establish notability of the subject. Excelse (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough coverage by RS (scholars and mainstream media) that clearly indicates the topic is notable. Here is a non-all-inclusive list. Note that the term "evangelical persecution complex" is also in use as a synonym. Also, note that not all editors have been informed of this AfD proposal. . Is that Canvasing? Anyway, the list.

Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I took some time to analyze the sources by Cinadon36. Here is my review:

Excelse (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic and well-sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Echo the above. However, it's pretty poorly written and if it survives the AfD it ought to be rewritten in a coherent fashion. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem with the article goes beyond notability, it is a WP:CFORK on historicity of persecution in the early church. The use of the term "Christian Persecution Complex" limits the sources to those who are arguing against historicity, thus with the current title it is not possible to write a neutral article. Our articles on this topic are usually named "Historicity of..." etc. But, not all of the sources above are on the same topic. The term is an ill-defined neologism, so the content about historicity of early Church martyrdom stories and hyperbole in present day American evangelicalism represent at least two different topics. It would be easier to nuke this and start over then it would be to fix it. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is neither a neologism nor a fork. The article does not deal with the historicity of persecutions in extent-there is just a brief mention in a section. When discussing early christian times the focus is on the perseption of those persecutions, not persecutions per se. Having clarified that, I would like to point out that the main body of the article deals with a current phenomenon -the idea of christians in the west that are being persecuted and in a lesser degree, its effect on mainstream politics. That has nothing to do with other WP articles that I know of (ie persecution of christians) hence I can not understand the claim that the article is a FORK.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep That the topic is notable is unquestionable. Maybe the article's name should be changed to something else. "Christian persecution myth" could be one option. There are many sources that elaborate on the topic, using different terms of course. But for deletion, I do not see enough reasons. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on this AfD as an editor who consulted the sources and tried to clean up the article before I saw how deep the issues ran and agreed to support a second AfD nomination. What you are calling the "persecution myth" starts with the narrative concerning Stephen in Acts of Apostles. The text of the Bible, as many editors are probably aware, is considered semi-historical and the degree of its historical authenticity as been discussed at length in scholarship - with near unanimity, Stephen scholars assume that behind Luke's highly stylized narrative of Stephen there lies a historical person. We can't just dismiss something that is nearly unanimously agreed upon in scholarly sources because Candida Moss wrote a new book. Since the main article hasn't even been created yet, this is an inappropriate FORK dealing with only one POV about a broader subject. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is not semi-historical, it is about a current phenomenon. Candida Moss published a notable book that made an impact. She is a leading expert on the subject. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic of usage of claims about persecution is notable, though the current name of the article might be wrong. Could interested editors agree to delete this article and write a new and more neutral one on the topic? If not, is there any other option to cover the topic while deleting this article? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite my attempt to take a wikibreak to reduce the wikistress in my life, I could work on something along the lines of "historicity of persecution in early christianity" if it will help us reach a consensus here. The plentiful background reading for the article will give me something to do during my downtime. Seraphim System ( talk ) 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a WP:NEOGLISM and an WP:ATTACK article. Most of the citations used in the article are opinionated blog articles, such as the Salon article. Some of the citations provided by the creator of the article User:Cinadon36, are self-published, such as "Persecution Complex: Why American Christians Need to Stop Claiming That They Are Persecuted" (printed by Crowdscribed, LLC). What a neutral book title by the way (sarcasm). This article also contradicts academic studies that demonstrate that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world in the present day. desmay (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Clearly it is not an attack, as it entails all views ie the hostility against Christians. WP:NEO does not apply either, as there are multiple secondary sources that are using the term. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This article, entitled with a nonextant psychiatric disorder which it uses to describe an entire class of people, is something like a Platonic form of pages. "Entail" doesn't mean remotely what you apparently think it does, and "clearly" isn't in and of itself an effective rebuttal.Mr Spear (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per User:Seraphim System's reasoning both here and on the article's talk page. Take away the handful of op-eds written by unauthoritative commentators in sources that fail WP:RS, and the remaining article violates WP:CFORK. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the idea that Christians suffer from persecutory delusions sounds like a fringe theory. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It is both a current psychological and sociological phenomena that is being researched, talked about and dialogued about in academic circles. The sources are not primairly blogs or self-published, :) :( that is a fringe claim. Sethie (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I quickly reviewed about three mainstream sources in the article and this passes WP:GNG pretty clearly. SportingFlyer  talk  02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons that Bmbaker88 noted above. Dhalsim2 (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsubstantiated by reliable sources. Majority of the sources are self-published or simply unreliable. Given the confirmed lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources" I believe there is no reason to keep the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources are unreliable? The Atlantic? Salon? Al Jazeera? The numerous published journal articles? All of these easily combine to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can say yes, and also include patheos blog, medium.com, etc. for confirming that this subject lacks GNG. Those sources claim that this belief is old, but if it is really old then why it failed to receive attention of reliable sources such as scholarly publications? Lorstaking (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This argument makes absolutely no sense. We have multiple academic articles which discuss the topic and multiple secondary independent news articles which discuss the topic. Calling the Atlantic or Al Jazeera "unreliable" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it's unquestionable WP:GNG has been satisfied. If you think the article should be deleted, you need to find something in WP:NOT to overcome the presumption the article should be on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer  talk  20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The extraordinary claims in this article need reliable high-quality sources, not just the opinions of one author contained in non-scholarly online news articles. Knox490 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article should be deleted per WP:POVTITLE and WP:CFORK. Could you imagine Encyclopedia Britannica or Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia hosting this article? I think not. Carajou (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reasons to delete, as deletion is not cleanup. This article just passed an AfD several months ago where it was clearly established it passed WP:GNG, especially with the sources found by the user E.M.Gregory (who I am not hotlinking so I do not canvass.) I'm not sure what making a comparison to the Britannica has to do with notability, either. SportingFlyer  talk  03:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, nothing that can't be fixed through regular editing, with plenty of WP:RS on the subject. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A subject such as this could receive significant coverage by reliable sources if it really happened to be notable. I have searched for the sources there is obvious scarcity of reliable academic sources. Lorstaking (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A handful of top quality reliable sources is enough. WP:NEO doesn't apply to scholarly research. w umbolo   ^^^  21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources are sufficient. --, and as they are from mainstream academics, I do not understand the claims of insufficient reliability. The delete arguments do not seem to apply to the article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There are plenty of primary sources to effectively refute the contents of this article. James Clifton  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Walter Clifton (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename, merge, or delete. In other words, NOT Keep as is. The title is POV. I object to any proposal that results in a standalone article with that kind of a title.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Expand content, this is about a controversial term, there should also be adequate coverage of opponents of the term in the article. Note that the article title is not POV because the article title just reflects the term that the article is about. It is the term itself that is controversial, that makes quite a difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't even have an article on persecution complex (this redirects to "persecutory delusion" becasue no serious psychiatrist talks about a "persecution complex" any more) so its absurd to have one on "X persecution complex". And if we had articles specifically about "X persecution complex" for every group where someone had alleged that some members of the group had a "persecution complex" (whatever that means) we'd be cluttering up Wikipedia absurdly. NBeale (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the Christian Persecution Complex has nothing to do with any kind of medical term. The term was coined by academics in the discipline of humanities, not medicine. Maybe a tag/note "not to be confused with...." would solve this particular problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand what is going on. Delete !votes based on "this is a content fork" and delete !votes based on "this is not a content fork". w umbolo   ^^^  13:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it when I voted, but it appears this is a controversial topic. Maybe that's why it was tagged in the political thread? For instance, the table above explicitly excludes a reliable source (how is the Atlantic unreliable?), doesn't mention other sources which count towards WP:GNG, and most of the delete votes are baffling. SportingFlyer  talk  23:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor point, but the Atlantic is rather politically biased (witness their editor's recent disastrous attempt to bring a single never-Trumpish conservative writer on board). Its fact checkers and fairly high standards can be depended upon for hard news stories but their op eds from, e.g., Ta-Nehisi Coates are not remotely for their topics. In this case, the page is attempting to present American Xians as suffering from a (discontinued) psychological disorder, which its writers are not even remotely qualified to review, let alone diagnose.—Mr Spear (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * With User:Mr. Guye, rename, merge, or delete are all fine. There are probably salvageable scholarly resources (which does not remotely include the politically-biased journalists at Salon or the Atlantic) to include into sections in the Persecution of Christianity, questioning its applicability in the present-day US and blaming such a perception on Christian privilege, which should also include mention of such sources. There doesn't need to be a CFORK here at all, let alone under such a blatantly prejudicial title based on humanities professors misusing a former psychological term to disparage their cultural opponents as mentally ill.


 * Fwiw, I'm atheist but still find it unquestionable that some aspects of Judeo-christian belief are necessarily curtailed in a secular nation. A non-biased title for the same page, which presented the side disagreeing with the scholarship being presented, would be something like Persecution of Christianity in the United States, which would present the current content as a counterpoint and avoid non-medically-based disparagement of Xians' mental health altogether. That said, it's obviously a CFORK if there's not enough content to justify it.—Mr Spear (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is my answer to Excelse's comments.

As I have stated earlier, the above was a non all inclusive list. There are other scholars utilizing the term in their work. Here is another two


 * Religious Liberty and the Origins of the Evangelical Persecution Complex Stephens, Randall (2016) 'Religious Liberty' and the Origins of the Evangelical Persecution Complex. Religion Dispatches. Note that Randall J. Stephens is a Reader in History and American Studies at Northumbria University


 * Christianity Today discussing "New research nuances the American church’s “persecution complex.”"
 * Carey, G. (2017). Daniel as an Americanized Apocalypse. Interpretation, 71(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020964316688052 Discusses in extense the CP Complex. "Beyond millenarian speculation, however, many modern interpretations of Daniel feed into one of two American Christian narratives: (a) a generic appeal to moral integrity in the face of peer pressure and cultural decay; and (b) a less widespread but socially significant persecution complex. " (underlining by me) And "Scholars and journalists alike have identified an “evangelical persecution complex” In our culture. This term unfairly stigmatizes all evangelicals but identifies a widely shared sensitivity. Some Christians major in the persecution complex, even to the point of associating florists who will not serve same-sex couples with actual Christian martyrs in the Middle East.24 Recent films like God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2 imagine embattled Christians prevailing against entrenched secularist opposition" That explains the film critique that was mentioned above.Cinadon36
 * Hornback R. (2018) Afterword: White Nationalism, Trolling Humor as Propaganda, and the “Renaissance” of Christian Racism in the Age of Trump. In: Racism and Early Blackface Comic Traditions. Palgrave Studies in Theatre and Performance History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. " In so doing, he, his speech writers, and advisors were pandering to the rising Christian white nationalist persecution complex in Poland and throughout Europe, giving voice to a message that Western Christianity—and Europeans—will defeat fundamentalist Islamism. He even concluded with an overt call to a modernday Crusade.." (underlining by me) and "...The metaphysical, religio-nationalist proto-racism brought by seventeenth-century English colonists from the Old World to the New abideth, reanimating the persecution complex of Puritans like Winthrop and Mather among the Puritans of our day..."'' Cinadon36 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge - agree with User:Mr. Guye. Current title does not appear exactly NPOV. Anything worth keeping re Christian perceptions of persecution should go with the persecution article. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as this article is based on a Neologism which never caught up. It is obvious that some of sources referenced here mention the subject in quotation marks, in connection with the author who originally mentioned the neologism. The term, therefore, did not get out of the connection with the author and it is pretty clear that there is little usage in reliable sources for this term. It is therefore not reaching the requirements of General notability guideline. Furthermore, the article is extremely problematic as it is a Synthesis which is not only unacceptable in Wikipedia, but also does not make any sense: It is equating unrelated references to "Evangelical", "American Christian" and "Christian Right", as well as "Christian white nationalist" to "Christian" in general. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no Synthesis in the article. Synthesis refers to combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I 'd ask give an example of Synthesis. "Evangelical" and "american christian" are not "unrelated" terms. Moreover, as other users have pointed out earlier, WP:NEO doesn't apply to scholarly research. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasoning by Seraphim System & Mr Spear, if the content is merged elsewhere, I would not be opposed to that if the content was made more neutral.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 21:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for notability issues. Sources are unreliable and the subject cannot be described without relying on self-published unreliable sources. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Vague and abstract concept; far from encyclopedic. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are reliable and of good quality. Besides this, there is not a problem with the title of the article, because it is purely descriptive of a subject that has many references and is well documented in academic work. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep looking above, the concerns about sourcing have not only been rebutted, but seems to have demonstrated that this article is well-sourced for its size, to a degree that other pages should strive to emulate. Furthermore, this is clearly a WP:NOTABLE concept especially within American politics -- I note this dispute is, probably not coincidentally, occurring during the happy month of the year where accusations of "War on Christmas" responded to by accusations of "War to impose Christmas on non-Christians" tend to be hurled back and forth. Within that discourse, the concept is clearly of note and worthy of study even by those who disagree with it. It being controversial (yes, it clearly is) does not negate its clear notability. --Calthinus (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, It will be a crime against humanity to delete this article, on the basis of !votes frivolously claiming unsourced/poor source. After careful review of the sources in the article and those presented and discussed above it is quite obvious for anyone that the topic is a highly notable topic and should be discussed separately. The sources are highly reliable. Absolutely no problem with the sourcing. Delete votes appear to me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Just because Persecution of Christians exists is no reason to delete this article. "Persecution of Christians" article can contain a para about this topic and this article Christian persecution complex can elaborate about it in detail. The article Persecution of Christians is already 230 KB and heavily bloated. WP:SIZERULE applies here, hence this is an absolutely valid WP:CFORK for this article. I also agree with other participants above like DGG, Calthinus who have also rightly pointed that delete reasons stated, don't really apply here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are sufficient to establish that this is its own topic; there's plenty of room for expansion and improvement, but I don't feel this is anywhere remotely close to the point where a deletion or merge can be credibly considered. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

]] versus a whopping 15,500 results for Christian persecution complex []. Nevertheless this is essentially an "other shit (doesn't) exist" argument that holds no water logically.--Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources lack notability--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, what? This isn't how Wikipedia works. For sources, you need reliability. For content, you need notability. has aptly demonstrated that this page has both. --Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: reviewing and 's discussion of sources, I find the former more persuasive and more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I see no reason to exclude sources like The Atlantic, so WP:GNG is met. Bondegezou (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an WP:ESSAY with not enough citations to establish notability. If someone searched, "atheist persecution complex" you'd also get Google hits because some polemical sources use that term (that's the same thing that's going on here). As others have said, it doesn't belong on the project. Eliko007 (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Google is verifiable, and we can see that "atheist persecution complex" has a measly 119 results [[https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=kwQZXKW8DqTMjwSyuoPoBA&q=%22atheist+persecution+complex%22&btnK=Google+Search&oq=%22atheist+persecution+complex%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...863.5279..5523...2.0..0.118.2904.21j10......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131.upxNX58b4pA
 * Delete. Both the title and the text are more suitable for an opinion essay than for an encyclopedia article. "Complex" is a term from Freudian psychology. The article contains no discussion of whether or not the term is appropriate. The clear implication is that Christians are of course crazy. FineStructure137 (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Um no, this is a term for discussion within societal discourse. This is histrionics at best.--Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. I feel like we should keep the article as it clearly passes all relevant criteria. Arguments for deletion were A)WP:GNG The term was used and discussed by academics (E. Castelli, C. Moss, P. Cavill, Noa Ben-Asher, Randall J. Stephens, Hornback Robert and others), mainstream media (the Atlantic, Washington Post, Huffington Post and others). B)WP:NEO was pointed out, but it doesn't apply to scholarly research, as enough secondary sources describe the term well. C)WP:FORK which does not apply here either as the article is not about the persecution of Christians, whether persecutions did happen in ancient Rome. It is mostly about the modern view of some Christians in the west, that are being persecuted- and its socio-political consequences. The historicity of persecution is only remotely discussed. Merging with other articles poses some serious problems. Persecution of Christians is already a huge article. Moreover, the topic of the article is different than the topic discussed in CP Complex. Surely, there are some drawbacks of the article that we need to address. Most probably, some Christians might feel the title is offensive as there is a medical condition by the name "Complex". We should strive to make it as clear as it can get, that the term has nothing to do with a medical disorder, it is a term that is being used in humanities.Cinadon36 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You have already voted once. No need to vote again. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ktrimi991, I didn't know that, I am not familiar with this relisting procedure. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I see an article on a real topic with current, reliable sourcing, both from "popular" and from academic sources. That doesn't mean there aren't any problems with the article--I am not sure that the "early" complex and the current complex should be treated in the same article. I also detect an essayistic tone, but I don't see it verging into the polemical. In other words, I don't see anything that collaborative editing can't fix. Keep. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, retitling to "Modern Christian persecution myth" or something else that avoids the suggestion of mental illness, and restrict to modern history. Persecution of Christians in the days of the early Church is a historical topic with which the modern phenomenon of mistaken perception should not be confused. There is ample coverage in reliable news sources of the contemporary phenomenon. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That proposed title would seem to present as many problems as solutions. After all, there is some real non-mythical persecution of Christians in the modern world. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am not sure there is sufficient coverage in reliable source to build an article around. When User:Headbomb said there were plenty of sources, I clicked his link and found 17 at GScholar. Subtracting mentions of Castelli, I get 7 hits. And there are false positives (i.e., not all are RS). I strongly disagree with the views of many that mainstream media sources like The Atlantic, Salon and HuffPost are RS for this topic. They are not. Also, User:NBeale's concern that we do not even have an article on persecution complex goes to the argument others have raised about vagueness. If this isn't a psychological or medical condition like persecutory delusion, what is it exactly? Who suffers from it? Why are we reporting how a few humanists use a term from Freudian psychoanalysis? On the other hand, I tend to agree with User:Drmies that given the existence of some RS this should just be hashed out between editors the normal way. The fact that nobody knows exactly what a "persecution complex" is, is to me the biggest red flag. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But, for the "modern" persecution complex, which is about how alleged "Christians" feel about their position in society, those are exactly the right kind of sources--current issue, current publications. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But, that raises other issues. If the mainstream sources are disseminating scholarship, we don't need them. If they are doing their own social analysis... well, what do you make of an op-ed writer at Salon talking about a "Christian persecution complex"? I do not make of it anything Wikipedia-worthy (i.e., encyclopedic). Is a writer at The Atlantic really a reliable source for "how alleged 'Christians' feel about their position in society"? Beyond a handful they may have interviewed, no. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We use "mainstream sources" and their analysis all the time. The Atlantic is a reliable source. Yes, a writer for that magazine can be a valuable source for this topic. I'm sorry, but these sources are accepted all over Wikipedia for precisely these kinds of topics. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs much more work, but there is coverage for the topic.Resnjari (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination is based on notability. that's been pretty thoroughly established above, in the article, and with even cursory searches. Discussion of what the title should be can happen on the talk page. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - per OR and COATRACK. 23 editor (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep—clearly the topic meets WP:GNG per references established above. RM is the place to request a move, and AfD is not cleanup. This article discusses the attitude of Western Christians towards secularization, not the actual persecution experienced by Christians elsewhere, for example the Soviet Union or Islamist states. Catrìona (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, and redistribute the material more appropriately. There are basically three sets of information here: one, some reasonably-well-sourced stuff about persecution and its perception in the early centuries of Christianity; two, some other stuff about feelings of persecution experienced by (or claimed by, or used as a means of manipulation by or of) 20th/21st century evangelical Christians; three, some other stuff about genuine hostility experienced by Christians. These three do not (and, I think, cannot) make a cohesive whole. The stuff about early persecutions should probably be merged into Persecution of Christians. The stuff about the modern perception of loss or persecution that is sometimes labelled a "persecution complex" is actually a more complex phenomenon and deserves better treatment and a tone that doesn't come off as WP:ATTACK. It should probably be covered over at Christian privilege and/or Religion and politics in the United States. And finally, real and recent persecution of Christians has a home over at Persecution of Christians in the modern era.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I certainly hear a lot of claims about Christians (by Christians) being persecuted, both in person and on religious forums. Squad51 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but claiming that you are being persecuted is not remotely the same thing as having a persecution complex. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficiently deep discussion in RS to warrant a separate article. Merge useful material elsewhere. I deny that op-eds in mainstream sources are RS for this topic. The actual discussion of a modern "Christian persecution complex" in the article is quite short. In terms of scholarship, the term is strongly connected to one scholar (Castelli). Only seven hits on GScholars that don't mention her. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Our article on right-wing socialism was moved to paternalistic conservatism in 2017 and largely revamped, yet "right-wing socialism" gets 109 hits on Google Scholars compared to just 17 for this title. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is Francesca Stavrakopoulou answering a Question on Christian Persecution Complex. (at 22:40) It was recorded at the World Humanist Congress 2014, Oxford, UK. Held by IHEU, run by the British Humanist Association (BHA).. According to Stavrakopoulou, it is a core belief of Christian Faith, that if you are a Christian, you should expect to suffer and be persecuted.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does everybody who expects to be persecuted have a persecution complex? Also, is an Old Testament expert speaking to a crowd of humanists really a reliable source for the core beliefs of the Christian faith? And is that what this page is even supposed to be about? Is the contention of Castelli that a "Christian persecution complex" is inherent in Christianity? There is no mention of a persecution complex that I can find in her Martyrdom and Memory. Srnec (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Coverage exists in unreliable sources contrary to the need of coverage in reliable sources. The persecution of Christians in the modern era is phenomenon that is ongoing.  To say that this is a "complex" flies in the face of facts. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2018 (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.