Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical mysticism


 * 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, per a consensus that there are irremediable WP:OR concerns. If the article creator or some other editor wants to work on this content in order to turn it into a usable article I'd be willing to userfy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical mysticism

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is not an encyclopedia article, but a persuasive essay disguised as an encyclopedia article. It contains a number of false or misleading claims: that mainline Christian churches (described as 'liberal' in this essay) have a practice of prayer that is inspired by New Age, yoga, and zen, rather than the historical practices of the church, while evangelical Christian churches are the real practitioners of mysticism. I don't think that a neutral, sourced article on the subject of 'evangelical mysticism' can be written, because the term is not widely used- most of the sources cited do not use the term, and those that do are blogs, or use it in an entirely different context.

This article uses a synthesis of sources to make a point which supports a specific religious belief but which is not well founded in fact, and there are not enough reliable sources of information about what 'evangelical mysticism' is for any neutral person to do the full rewrite that would otherwise be required. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.POV issues are not considered a valid deletion rationale. This is a notable subject, there are reliable sources out there and an encyclopedic article can be written. It's true that a substantial amount of work may be required, but that isn't grounds for deletion. Redirect to Evangelicalism, plausible search term.--res Laozi speak  22:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the books on that list were written before the evangelical movement. This article is about mysticism in the modern evangelical tradition.  The word 'evangelical' had a very different meaning in the 18th century than it does today. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the external link: "cd_min:2000,cd_max:2099", the search only includes books in the 21st century. I've already known that the 18th century sense of the word is different from the modern sense, hence why I specified 21st century results. --res Laozi speak  22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the external link. At least half of those sources are discussing the same essay by John Fletcher (1729-1785). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is excluding 20th century results, which are also relevant, but weren't included in my original comment. These are just the results from the last ten years. Exclude the John Fletcher results (which are modern analyses, hate to be pedantic, but "written before" is inaccurate), and you still have 50 some results. This subject is notable.--res Laozi speak  22:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tut tut! Very bad research on your part.  Actually read the books that you are citing as being "from the last ten years".  Albert Henry Newman died in 1933, for example.  Eduard Reuss, another author on your purported list of "last ten years", died in 1891, and the book listed was published in 1874.  William Theophilus Dawson, a third author on your purported list of "last ten years", died in 1935 and the book itself was published in 1911.  Your list also includes works by A. W. Benn and Edwin Stringham, both obviously dead longer than 10 years, and James M. Campbell, who died in 1926 and whose book was published in 1908. Always read what your searches turn up.  A search result isn't an argument; and people who point to searches on search engines are not making well-researched arguments, but almost always arguments that are full of holes, as yours is here.  (I'm even leaving aside the massive hole in your argument that you pointed to a Google Books search, which is a bad argument on its face, given how Google Books works.) Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bite me please, I'm still relatively new, and I don't know all the kinks to Google Books searches. I'll withdraw my keep, but I retain a redirect, since it may be a plausible search term.--res Laozi speak  22:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "biting" there. This isn't some Wikipedia-specific thing, that a Wikipedia novice wouldn't be expected to know.  This is how to use search engines as research tools, and checking the publication dates of books, and is not Wikipedia-specific at all.  Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Google Books kept track of publication dates? I assumed that specifying 21st century results would be enough, but it seems that it's not. So I've learned something new today. Either way, this is getting off topic. I'm still new to researching regarding notability, which is a "Wikipedia-specific thing", and the part that I consider to be bite-y.--res Laozi speak  23:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not biting, just a suggestion- start by closely reading this article, and see how much you think could be salvaged after the POV and the synthesis are removed. To my eyes, once you remove the religious argument and the sources that don't actually say what the article is claiming, there doesn't seem to be anything left- and a rewrite is only a good suggestion if there's someone willing to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FisherQueen, I didn't consider your replies to be biting at all, and apologise if I've implied that they were so. I understand your point now, hence my withdrawing of the keep.--res Laozi speak  23:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is great original research. I would love to read this in some periodical, but it does not belong here at WP. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: O.R. essay; not salvagable article. Jonathunder (talk) 23:39, 24 November 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.