Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians


 * 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. Consensus clearly leans towards deletion, merging to Christianity and slavery is not needed as the contents came from there, and ending up with a redirect from this title to Christianity and slavery would be not really NPOV. Fram (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of the Christians
AfDs related to this article: Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Created as a joke, basically: a parody of Economic history of the Jews. See that AfD for further context. Could an actual encyclopedic article be written on this topic? Possibly. But until someone is interested in actually doing so, this WP:POINTY WP:COATRACK POV-skewed mess does not belong in the mainspace. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubify as the incarnation now is entirely a construct based on Christians supporting slavery. Frankly, an article tracing the trade routes developed as a result of the Crusades might make an interesting article. This one is not it.  Collect (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * delete: No need to keep such a WP:POINTy article, subject is not so notable as to merit a placeholder, unless someone wants one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubify per Collect. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the coatrack/joke/pointy label, because even if a serious article could be constructed on this topic, of which I am not yet convinced, this is a ludicrous way to go about it: fundamentally unrelated texts and authors shoehorned together. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubify per Collect.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy userfy this was a pointy article which, due to its incompleteness is very pointy and far from having any value to wikipedia. Passionless   -Talk  07:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Additionally, I doubt that such a wide topic can be generalized in a non-speculative manner. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Keep Unlike Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims, no target for merge has been proposed. Until I see a target to merge to, I vote Keep. POV is not just about hyperbole to emphasize bad things, it is also using euphemisms to diminish bad things and worse, ignoring them. The connection between economics and slavery cannot be severed, it can only be painted over or hidden. Anarchangel (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Economic history of the Jews was deleted at AfD; it had a similar smear, and a slam-dunk counterargument, part of which I wrote. Christians and Muslims were forbidden to lend money, Jews were forbidden other occupations, et voila, Christians complaining that Jews were lending money. Who knows, maybe there is a counterargument for slavery. I doubt it. Admit it, censor it, whatever; I no longer believe anyone here is interested in the truth. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just because the article was created as a WP:POINT doesn't mean it should be deleted as a WP:POINT; reliable sources seem to exist backing the notability of this topic. No prejudice against stubifying or merging. TotientDragooned (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator is violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by attacking the creation of this article (by me). It is highly offensive to call it a "joke" when it conforms to all WP standards of WP:CITE; WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See Economic history of the Jews as an example of this genre of articles. This article was nominated for deletion withing 24 hours of its creation without any serious effort at discussing it. Tens of thousands of WP articles have been created this way. The article is a serious WP:STUB with many WP:RS. The nominator is requested to note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and to withdraw this hasty nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why are you recommending "delete" for the Jewish entry? Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, as you did when you created this entry.Griswaldo (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Griswaldo, you are clearly violating WP:AGF, or for some reason you just dislike this topic on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and feel that picking on me instead is more productive. Please re-read everything I wrote on that AfD, and you will clearly see that I strongly recommended that that article be renamed as Jewish views on economics as per all articles in Category:Jewish views, making my "Delete" vote there conditional. As it stands that other article is too biased but the ones I created are all within WP:NPOV and are just well-sourced stubs that need improvement and are not the last word on the subject by any means, as you can see from the "Keep" votes here. I would have been happy to discuss renaming this article too but I was left no option since it was nominated for deletion within 24 hours of its creation as a stub. IZAK (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See related AfDs: Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews and Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I personally see some similarities here to what happened in this case, but leave it up to other editors to decide if the it's the same thing going on here.  In that case, a group of editors tried to get the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted by creating several other articles such as Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid, Allegations of American Apartheid, etc. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cla: There is no "conspiracy" going on here and no other editors have been involved in my decision to expand an important topic in a WP:NPOV reliable manner, as well as the new Category:Economic history by religious and ethnic group. Stop conflating and mixing up separate topics. The term "Apartheid" is a specific and pejorative word, while Economic history is a legitimate field of study. IZAK (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, please see also. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge (without prejudice to future attempts) to Christianity and slavery, a well established article. There is a place for a more general article, and I would support its creation, but right now it doesn't have any of the content needed to build one, outside the narrow category of slavery, and you could probably think of a better title once you got your content together.  I don't think that you should lose anything in such a merge.  Please note that I do not support the deletion of this category of articles in general, only the merging of this particular one due to its similarity to an existing article. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Wnt: The Economic history of the Christians is not "just" about the slave era. Many scholars study economics from a Christian perspective. See the introduction. The article is a stub in its formative stages and includes much more. IZAK (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True, there are several notable sources listed in the introduction. The problem is that it doesn't actually tell us what they say, but just lists them with a very brief description of what they're about.  When I put aside the part that could be merged with Christianity and slavery I don't feel like I'm looking even at a stub.  Admittedly, this could be redressed rather easily if you have the sources in hand, but the same would be true even if the article got deleted, and certainly if it is merely merged.  I should note again that I don't have any desire to prevent the recreation of the article once it covers a bit more ground - someone could certainly add enough in a day to change my vote to keep, if interested.  But I'm not sure anyone's really working on the article, because of the circumstance of its creation. Wnt (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is little more than a coatrack and an example of original research by synthesis, obviously created as a counterpart to/retaliation for the equally bad Economic history of the Jews. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Economic history is just as important as political, cultural, and religious history. Assuming that Jews, Muslims, and Christians, have certain cultural and religious aspects, there's no reason why religion might not influence the economic behavior ass well. Plus it is well-sourced.--Therexbanner (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep No doubt this article's creation is the result of Economic history of the Jews, but that does not negate the quality of the sources or notability of this article. If Wikipedia is going to host articles on economics and religion, then the rules should apply to everyone - not just Jews. Perhaps an alternative would be creating a mega article that enumerates religion/ethnic groups and their economic history/financial legacy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Christianity and slavery, or delete. I'm not even sure if an article on the "economic history of the Christians" could be written (for example because economically there's little in common between the Christians in western Europe and those in Ethiopia), but this is not even the basis of such an article. Huon (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to merge: Text is an exact copy-paste of the leads to Christianity and slavery and Invisible Churches (Slavery). The material existed on Wikipedia long before this article (Why fork if you're not going to add anything new, anyway?) Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. There is a lot more that rightly could and should be added. I just dropped mention of an older book into its lede, Wiki's article just on that classic book is 27k. Apparently the parody missed that one. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - There is considerable coverage of the topic of Christian economics in general:, and within that more than enough for a detailed historical treatment. The title is clumsy however and should be 'Christian economic history'


 * I understand that the editor created this and similar articles to prove a point, but in my view they have actually served to prove the opposite. In fact, in my view, the case for an economic/financial history of the Jews is actually very much stronger, since the Jews, unlike the Christians, are also an ethnic group/tribe/race/culture (depending on viewpoint) and are clearly not just a religious grouping, and whilst there can be atheistic Jews there is no such thing as an atheistic Christians.


 * The content of the article is, of course, biased and requires tidy up, the removal of some content and the insertion of balancing content.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the same Use Common Sense argument I presented at Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)\
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. This article was created as a counter-WP:POINT to the Jewish one.  There is a viable topic here but the entry is too tainted to exist and should be deleted so someone who isn't violating policy (WP:POINT) can start afresh.Griswaldo (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy/delete or stub to lead . Currently, the body of the article uses zero sources about the general topic. It chooses to select two sub-topics, which are thinly sourced, and presents as them as the mainstream view of the whole field. The two sections don't even discuss slavery from an economics viewpoint. This is a fail-grade WP:COATRACK essay. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lead is useless a summary of the topic as well. It's merely a bibliography in prose format. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I don't see why you have a vendetta against these articles, each culture has its own history with money. LiteralKa (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when are Christians part of "a culture"?Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Entirely pointless article purportedly on an incredibly varied non-cultural grouping, but which actually focuses (poorly) on a single issue - slavery. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; we already have Christianity and slavery to cover what this article is ostensibly trying to cover. No prejudice against the creation of a serious article on Economic history of Christianity, though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Necrotheap and as a violation of policy against content forks. Article apparently quickly cobbled together as a pointy counterpart to now deleted "Economic history of the Jews" via false analogy (more appropriate analogues would be "Economic History of the Gypsies/Kurds/Berbers/Swahili" etc.). No evidence economic historians have written books under this title. Bad, undue weight-violating page. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Important point Whole paragraphs of this article appear to be copied and pasted virtually unaltered from other Wikipedia articles without attribution to the original authors. My understanding is that this is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. It also means the article is a redundant content fork of material available elsewhere. --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - We had an Economic history of the Jews that coatracked anti-semitic canards, a pointy Economic history of the Muslims that recycled existing material and may well represent a content fork, and then this even-more-pointy, even-less-worthy piece of junk. As with Economic history of the Jews, there is a valid encyclopedic article to be written here. Also as with that article, this piece of crap needs to be blown to bits so the backhoe can lay a proper foundation for a real article. For the record: if anyone ever wants to get serious about this topic a good source would be C. Osborne Ward's two-volume The Ancient Lowly: A History of the Ancient Working People from the Earliest Known Period to the Adoption of Christianity by Constantine. [1888]. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is also a fairly vast literature on the "primitive communism" of the early Christian communities, if I'm not mistaken. Christianity and slavery would be a fairly enormous sub-topic... This would be a really big, really difficult article if done correctly. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And another sub-section: Role of the Christian church in feudal Europe... Carrite (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * delete per Carrite. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is a pointy coatrack that was created by copying much of another deleted article, using synthesis.
 * Delete clever retort to Jews and money but WP:POINTy to put it in article space. Would have deserved a smile if released in user space instead (especially on April 1) and linked in appropriate project-space venues.  As things are, WP:TROUT to the author. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (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.