Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianised rituals


 * 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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianised rituals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article tries to prove that rituals in Christianity come from other sources, and presents alternate histories to the eucharist, baptism, and even the sign of the cross. Entire article is an essay, original research, and blatant POV. Sources are poor or non-existent in some cases, and in other cases are so badly twisted as to be unrecognizable. Brad 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete due to lack of references years after statements were tagged as unreferenced. The article lacks references, but is not original research. I've heard Methodist and Lutheran ministers, and students of comparative religion express views similar to the contents of this article, that Christian symbols and rituals in the early church often derived from or were related to those of Mithraism and Judaism, and to Egyptian religions. Such views may be shocking to fundamentalists, but not to scholars of other mainstream branches of Christianity. I have not read the texts they studied in seminary to arrive at these views. Clearly these views on the origins of the cross symbol, baptism, or the locations of Christian churches on old pagan holy sites do not originate with the author of this article. But the article is full of "some scholars say" and "authorities say" but long since tagged as lacking the needed specific inline references. Having a list of books at the bottom of the article as references is not a satisfactory answer. The basic content and arguments of the article belong somewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps in articles on the history of Christianity or comparative religion. Is there presently such coverage? This remains an unreferenced essay. Perhaps this could be redirected to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology Another ill referenced or unreferenced similar article is Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity. See Osiris for scholarly comparison of the Christ story and the stories about that god. Edison (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete First of all the name of the article is something of a problem in that it's not really the name of something; it's more of an essay title. Second, this article is essentially an accidental fork of Christianization, which appears to have originated as an essay claiming that much of the ritual etc. content of Christianity was appropriated from pagan sources. The main article got cleaned up, but this article remained as a backwater. The notion of such appropriation is notable, and presumably is dealt with somewhere (but it's also something of a fringe theory-- the current Christianization article is much more in line with mainstream thought). The notion that Christian ritual comes from pagan sources is resolutely fringe. There's a place to put such a discussion, but not under this article name. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The idea that Christianity adapted some of its rituals from Pre-Christian (either Jewish or Pagan) antecedents is fairly well established and accepted. But that is not really what this article is about.  The article has enough "long-term uncited" material and OR that it should be cleaned up to a stub and reworked.  However, I agree with Mangoe that this is better done under a clearer title. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per long-standing WP:OR and unreferenced material. The content here is flawed, while the topic should be covered in Eucharist and Baptism. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and repoint to Christianisation. The article is unsourced and non-notable in its current form, so largely fails wp:or and wp:n. There are many fringe theories put forward by numerous authors with regards the origin of various christian rituals, but no need to gather them into one topic, nor any particular reason to put these ideas in Baptism or Eucharist unless due weight can be found to support their inclusion. The best place would be to add these ideas to their proponents articles. Davémon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * valid topic. It is true that the current version is an essay, but we usually don't delete articles on valid topics just because they need to be cleaned up or referenced. If we do delete in this case, this should in no way be considered a judgement on the validity of the topic, just a decision to WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dab, aren't the valid points in this topic already covered in the Christianization article? Or is there something I am not seeing? Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unreferenced and original research.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * valid topic. The article certainly needs to be properly re-written and referenced, but if its simply merged into Christianisation then crusaders will suppress the material using WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I agree that a better title is needed - I propose that the article be retained (with all its warning notices) until a more-encyclopediac title is identified, then the valid and referenced material be carried over, and that only then should this article be deleted. Any offers on a better title? Wdford (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try going into eucharist, baptism, etc. and try to advance these ideas there-- with sources? Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2010 (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.